From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Stacy White" <harsh(at)computer(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Partitioned table performance |
Date: | 2004-12-15 18:25:02 |
Message-ID: | 200412151025.02262.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Stacy,
> Thanks again for the reply. So it sounds like the answer to my original
> question is that it's expected that the pseudo-partitioning would introduce
> a fairly significant amount of overhead. Correct?
Correct. For that matter, Oracle table partitioning introduces significant
overhead, from what I've seen. I don't think there's a way not to.
Generally, I counsel people that they only want to consider
pseudo-partitioning if they have one axis on the table which is used in 90%
or more of the queries against that table.
What would improve the situation significantly, and the utility of
pseudo-partitioning, is the ability to have a single index span multiple
partitions. This would allow you to have a segmented index for the
partitioned axis, yet still use an unsegmented index for the other columns.
However, there's a *lot* of work to do to make that happen.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-12-15 19:34:26 | Re: Partitioned table performance |
Previous Message | Ragnar Hafstað | 2004-12-15 18:23:43 | Re: [PERFORM] \d output to a file |