| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parse partition strategy string in gram.y |
| Date: | 2022-10-25 23:15:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20221025231532.ndofmybeizfcaclj@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Oct-25, Finnerty, Jim wrote:
> Or if you know the frequencies of the highly frequent values of the
> partitioning key at the time the partition bounds are defined, you
> could define hash ranges that contain approximately the same number of
> rows in each partition. A parallel sequential scan of all partitions
> would then perform better because data skew is minimized.
This sounds very much like list partitioning to me.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
(Hobbes)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-10-25 23:23:36 | Re: parse partition strategy string in gram.y |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-10-25 22:55:28 | Re: [PATCH] CF app: add "Returned: Needs more interest" |