Re: Partitioned table performance

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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