From: | "Jim Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Sriram Dandapani" <sdandapani(at)counterpane(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Tale partitioning |
Date: | 2006-05-04 18:37:17 |
Message-ID: | 4D27CB1096EF1C408F4BFAB0046EC7B6099F35@ausmailid.aus.pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Please include the mailing list in your replies so others can provide input.
> From: Sriram Dandapani [mailto:sdandapani(at)counterpane(dot)com]
> Most of our reports use a order by limit X...The rowcount in
> some tables
> are > 200 million. (and the table size is about 50-100gb)
>
> Does the fact that constraint_exclusion doesn't deal with order by
> /limit
> makes partitioning an unwise choice.
Well, in a worst-case scenario, partitioning will perform no worse than if you had one giant table. So it's not hurting you, it may just not be helping you.
> What if the main query does just an order by and an outer query wraps
> the inner query with a limit..
It all depends on if the order-by code is partitioning aware, and I'm not sure that it is. But if you index on the appropriate column it should hopefully make use of that...
> I am trying to figure out if I should use partitioning or not (my goal
> is two-fold..purge lots of data in aged tables and make queries
> partition-aware)
Well, reason #1 sounds like plenty of justification for using partitioning to me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Jim C. Nasby
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:51 PM
> To: Chris Hoover
> Cc: Benjamin Krajmalnik; pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Tale partitioning
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Chris Hoover wrote:
> > Each of the partition tables needs it's own set of indexes. Build
> them, and
> > see if the does not fix your performance issues. Also, be sure you
> turned
> > on the constraint_exclusion parameter, and each table
> (other than the
> > "master") has an constraint on it that is unique.
>
> I don't believe constraint_exclusion is smart enough to deal
> with ORDER
> BY / LIMIT yet... :/
> --
> Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
> Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
> vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sriram Dandapani | 2006-05-04 18:40:51 | Re: Tale partitioning |
Previous Message | Tomeh, Husam | 2006-05-04 18:34:42 | Re: backup problem |