| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Kumar, Virendra" <Virendra(dot)Kumar(at)guycarp(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How Many Partitions are Good Performing |
| Date: | 2018-01-09 00:51:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20180109005021.GD76418@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:54:18AM +0100, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
> Can somebody tell us how many partitions are good number without
> impacting the performance. We are hearing around a thousand, is that a
> limit. Do we have plan to increase the number of partitions for a
> table. We would appreciate if somebody can help us with this?
What matters here is that the bottleneck comes from the planner which
uses basically a O(N^2) algorithm to evaluate all the partitions, so a
too high number causes planning time to increase dramatically. In
Postgres 11, things get improved with more partition-wise logics.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Márcio A. Sepp | 2018-01-09 01:25:51 | help with generation_series in pg10 |
| Previous Message | Rakesh Kumar | 2018-01-08 23:54:18 | Re: How Many Partitions are Good Performing |