Re: Big table and partition

On 10/16/23 08:09, Rajesh Kumar wrote:
> As said, we have timetamp in jsonb, incase if we want to partition.

That's not going to work.  The timestamp must be it's own column.

>
> How do I convince them that partition is not needed for this table?

By demonstrating that DELETE WHERE id < nnnnnnn; is Fast Enough.  (And
remember what your mother told you about not stuffing your mouth full of
food: delete in bite-sized chunks.  There's no need to delete half the
records in one statement.)

>
> On Mon, 16 Oct, 2023, 1:38 PM JP Pozzi, <jpp(at)jppozzi(dot)dyndns(dot)org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Partitionning is not so simple, it is better to have a key (or part of
> key)  or a date to make
> useful partitionning decision.
> If you want to suppress (or archive and suppress) some data it is
> simple to "drop" a whole
> partition. Also if the partitionning key (or part ok key) is in most
> queries it is a good solution
> for better performance.
>
> Regards
>
> JP P
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *De: *"Ron" <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
> *À: *"pgsql-admin" <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
> *Envoyé: *Dimanche 15 Octobre 2023 23:03:49
> *Objet: *Re: Big table and partition
>
> On 10/15/23 15:46, Rajesh Kumar wrote:
>
> The columns are id, blocknumber and jsondata.
>
>
> No date column?
>
> How much json data?
>
>
> I have not been told anything ABT data retention and I will ask them.
>
> Problem I am trying to resolve is, 30gb is big
>
>
> Big is relative.  30GB in 2023 is pretty darned small.
>
> and it will be every growing always. By doing this, i am making
> the scan easier (despite having indexes).
>
>  Growth will be 10gb per year data.
>
>
> That's less than a gigabyte per month.
>
>
> Incase I am doing partition, Plz provide any script that does
> partitioning automatically. We are using postgres version 15.
>
>
> *Keep It Simple, Stanley* and just DELETE WHERE id < /nnnnnnn/;. Do
> that every month.
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct, 2023, 8:07 PM Christophe Courtois,
> <christophe(dot)courtois(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 14/10/2023 à 22:46, Rajesh Kumar a écrit :
> > In my env, I have a table 30GB where data is getting
> inserted directly
> > whenever the new block is created in block chain...
> > I have been asked to do partition, i said manager since we
> are not at
> > all using the past data, partition is not required. Instead
> we can stop
> > the sync (downtime not required), change the name of table ,
> create a
> > new table with same structure with original name and keep
> only tis month
> > data. Then sync the blockchain so that new data will come to
> newly
> > created table and old data will be there simply as a storage
> as we r not
> > selecting any query from old data...
>
> In fact, you want to do manual partitioning.
> Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> > Note: on a longer run, data will keep on coming in whenever
> new block is
> > created.
> > Is that right ? Any suggestions ? Better options ?
>
> What problem do you have to solve? 30 GB is not so big, but
> since when
> do you store data? Will you purge the table? What is the main
> access key
> of your queries (critical for the partitioning key)?
>
> Without other information I'd say that if you never read the
> former
> months again, partition by month, perhaps by year.
>
> --
> Christophe Courtois
> Consultant DALIBO
>
>
> --
> Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
>

--
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.