From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |
Date: | 2022-01-17 15:36:43 |
Message-ID: | 4115872.1642433803@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 7:58 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I find it hard to believe that you'll *never* run a report against more
>>> customers than are in a single partition.
>> Yeah, I'm a little suspicious of that.
> Is "never" really the correct threshold here?
It is if you've pushed things to the point where, say, "select count(*)
from partitioned_table" will fail outright. I don't have a lot of faith
in system designs that assume there will never be any ad-hoc queries
that are outside your normal pattern.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron | 2022-01-17 17:28:15 | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-01-17 15:14:43 | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |