| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steven Flatt <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Colin Taylor <colin(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: table partioning performance |
| Date: | 2007-01-10 20:24:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20070110202442.GV12217@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:02:24PM -0500, Steven Flatt wrote:
> We use partitioned tables extensively and we have observed linear
> performance degradation on inserts as the number of rules on the master
> table grows (i.e. number of rules = number of partitions). We had to come
> up with a solution that didn't have a rule per partition on the master
> table. Just wondering if you are observing the same thing.
Except for the simplest partitioning cases, you'll be much better off
using a trigger on the parent table to direct inserts/updates/deletes to
the children. As a bonus, using a trigger makes it a lot more realistic
to deal with an update moving data between partitions.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steven Flatt | 2007-01-10 21:00:00 | Re: table partioning performance |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-01-10 20:17:40 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Building libpq/psql with Borland BCC5 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-10 20:26:52 | Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-10 20:20:06 | Re: Partitioning |