From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning |
Date: | 2016-02-16 00:28:23 |
Message-ID: | 56C26D27.40108@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Corey,
On 2016/02/16 5:15, Corey Huinker wrote:
>>
>> The individual patches have commit messages that describe code changes.
>> This is registered in the upcoming CF. Feedback and review is greatly
>> welcomed!
>>
> We have a current system that is currently a mix of tables, each of which
> is range partitioned into approximately 15 partitions (using the pgxn range
> partitioning extension), and those partitions are themselves date-series
> partitioned via pg_partman. The largest table ingests about 100M rows per
> day in a single ETL. I will try this patch out and see how well it compares
> in handling the workload. Do you have any areas of interest or concern that
> I should monitor?
Thanks a lot for willing to give it a spin!
I would say this patch series is more geared toward usability. For
example, you won't have to write a trigger to route tuples to correct
partitions. You can try your mentioned ETL load and see if the patch's
implementation of tuple routing fares any better than existing
trigger-based approach. Maybe, you were expecting something like load into
a stand-alone table and then ALTER TABLE INHERIT to instantly load into
the partitioned table (roll-in), but that command is not yet implemented
(ATTACH PARTITION command will show a "not implemented" error message).
Also, you won't see any optimizer and executor changes. Queries will still
use the same plans as existing inheritance-based partitioned tables,
although as I mentioned, constraint exclusion won't yet kick in. That will
be fixed very shortly.
And of course, comments on syntax are welcome as well.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-16 00:31:40 | Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-16 00:18:37 | Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions |