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 23:23:36 |
Message-ID: | 20221025232336.6zisdii6n6sbdacq@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Oct-26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
... or maybe you mean "if the value is X then use this specific
partition, otherwise use hash partitioning". It's a bit like
multi-level partitioning, but not really.
(You could test this idea by using two levels, list partitioning on top
with a default partition which is in turn partitioned by hash; but this
is unlikely to work well for large scale in practice. Or does it?)
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Entristecido, Wutra (canción de Las Barreras)
echa a Freyr a rodar
y a nosotros al mar"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-10-25 23:28:53 | Re: [PATCH] Fix build with LLVM 15 or above |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-10-25 23:15:32 | Re: parse partition strategy string in gram.y |