From: | Thomas Finneid <tfinneid(at)student(dot)matnat(dot)uio(dot)no> |
---|---|
To: | s(dot)caillet(at)free(dot)fr |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Partitions number limitation ? |
Date: | 2008-09-04 16:02:15 |
Message-ID: | 48C00687.1010200@ifi.uio.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
s(dot)caillet(at)free(dot)fr wrote:
> Is there some kind of limit in postgresql about the number of partitions ? Do
> you know some tuning in the conf files to improve postgresql management of so
> many tables ? I have already used different tablespaces, one for each main table
> and its 288 partitions.
Postgres is not really designed for performance of partitions, so you
have to manage that yourself. I am working on a project with a similar
design and found that the super table has its limitations. At some point
the db just aborts a query if there are to many partitions. I seem to
remeber I have worked with up to 100K partitions, but managed them
individually instead of through the super table.
Just a tip: if the table gets data inserted once and then mainly read
after that, its faster to create the index for the partition after the
insert.
Another tip: use COPY to insert data instead of INSERT, its about 3-5
times faster, it is supported by the C driver and a patched JDBC driver
regards
tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Cottenceau | 2008-09-04 16:08:11 | Re: limit clause breaks query planner? |
Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2008-09-04 15:50:00 | Re: limit clause breaks query planner? |