| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Rumpi Gravenstein <rgravens(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioned Table Index Column Order |
| Date: | 2021-06-23 23:39:16 |
| Message-ID: | 2549783.1624491556@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-Jun-23, Rumpi Gravenstein wrote:
>> As a best practice is it better to create the primary key starting or
>> ending with the partition column?
> It is not relevant from the partitioning point of view. Other factors
> can be used to decide the column order.
See in particular the hints in
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/indexes-multicolumn.html
The only thing that's different about partitioned situations is that
any particular child partition might have only a few values of the
partitioning column, which'd suggest putting it last if there are
no other relevant considerations. However, if you need a particular
column order to match query requirements, that's certainly going
to be a more important consideration.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-06-23 23:53:29 | Re: Partitioned Table Index Column Order |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-06-23 23:37:54 | Re: Is there something similar like flashback query from Oracle planned for PostgreSQL |