Re: Plans for partitioning of inheriting tables

Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> escribió:

> Changing that would count as a major change. Even if you where to
> convince the developers to make the change the earliest it would
> released would be with the next major release in Fall of 2025. That
> assumes you can convince then early enough or at all.

I was not trying to convince anyone to do anything about the
implementation of declarative partitioning. I have been just curious
if there were plans. If I have raised the impression of the former, I
am sorry.

> What I getting at is that you need to start thinking of another way
> of doing this if this is a current project. The choices are:
>
> 1) Declarative partitioning, where you cannot have your partition
> parent inherit from another table.
>
> 2) Partition by inheritance where you build the structure manually.

I very much agree. Shying the effort involved for 2), I still tend to
1). I could break the inheritance pattern by explicitly putting the
technical attributes into partitioned tables. My self, I probably
won't use more than one source, but others might have several source
for comparison or whatever.

>> Is there experience on the efficiency/speed comparing partitioning
>> with inheritance using triggers/rules and using the declarative
>> way? I don't think that partition speed is an issue in my case, as
>> I have fairly few records that are in themselves rather big.
>
> Hard to say without some firm numbers and/or testing.

Sure, I was hoping those test would have been done some day. But in
the end, to me, it is not important.

> Also this "... I have fairly few records that are in themselves
> rather big" could use some explanation. In other words what makes
> you think that partitioning is the answer to this issue?

I was not thinking that partitioning was the answer to a performance
problem. Partitioning might be an answer to the maintenance of
records, specifically if entire sources are affected. The size of the
tif files to get loaded into the raster attribute TILE range from 112
kB to 32 MB. I am complete unaware of the inner storing mechanisms of
raster in PostGIS, but on first sight, it seems that the rest of a
records of TOPO_FILES is negligible compared to the TILE. The total
number of files to be loaded in my case are 3273, even though that
only encompasses a small part of the world, I do not think, the latter
would surpass 100000 records. Not much for a database table, afaik. I
mean to say that I believe that loading that much data into one field
will take much more time than runtime difference of
trigger/rules/declarative partitioning solutions would to sort the
data into the correct partition.