| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH? |
| Date: | 2020-06-03 15:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20200603150959.GP30144@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 09:45:48AM +0200, Oleksandr Shulgin wrote:
> I see. So it works with low cardinality in the partitioned column. With
> high cardinality an index scan on an unpartitioned table would be
> preferable I guess.
>
> The documentation page I've linked only contains examples around
> partitioning BY RANGE. I believe it'd be helpful to extend it with some
> meaningful examples for LIST and HASH partitioning.
I agree. I think it would also be useful to mention the "benefits" which
aren't likely to apply to hash partitioning.
Would you want to propose an example to include ?
Eventually it needs to be submitted as a patch to -hackers.
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Schneider | 2020-06-03 16:50:12 | Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment |
| Previous Message | Sonam Sharma | 2020-06-03 14:58:59 | Shared memory error |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Semanchuk | 2020-06-03 20:04:13 | increased max_parallel_workers_per_gather results in fewer workers? |
| Previous Message | Oleksandr Shulgin | 2020-06-03 11:55:25 | Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH? |