From: | Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Majid Azimi <majid(dot)merkava(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL - Novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Very Large Table Partitioning |
Date: | 2010-12-17 22:26:28 |
Message-ID: | 4D0BE394.80609@vmsinfo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Majid Azimi <majid(dot)merkava(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> if we decide to partition table per user we have lots of tables (maybe
>> more than 100000+) with only 10000 records each.
>> is this a good idea? is there any limit for number of tables?
>>
>
> No, it's a fantastically bad idea. Please note the caveats in the
> partitioning documentation --- the facility is not meant for more than
> order-of-a-hundred partitions. Even if Postgres didn't have issues with
> it, your filesystem might get ill with hundreds of thousands of files in
> one directory.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
Tom, at one time you mentioned "getting the proper partitioning". Any
inklings on what was meant by that and if there was any progress on that?
--
Mladen Gogala
Sr. Oracle DBA
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 329-5251
http://www.vmsinfo.com
The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mark | 2010-12-18 02:10:00 | Re: Very Large Table Partitioning |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-17 19:38:49 | Re: Very Large Table Partitioning |