<div>Values for the key partitioning column are generated randomly and I can't predict their distribution between ranges.</div><div>If I just create some ranges I won't have any guarantee that partitions will have similar amount of data. It is possible that I will have 2 or 3 extremely big partitions and a bit of data in others.</div><div> </div><div>Thank you,</div><div>Iana Golubeva</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>12.01.2021, 17:55, "Michael Lewis" <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com>:</div><blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:21 AM Голубева Яна <<a href="mailto:ishsha(at)yandex(dot)ru">ishsha(at)yandex(dot)ru</a>> wrote:<br /></div><div class="f13ca48719c8a60033905b23b39675agmail_quote"><blockquote class="f13ca48719c8a60033905b23b39675agmail_quote" style="border-left-color:rgb( 204 , 204 , 204 );border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1px;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"><div>List or range partitioning isn't suitable for my case.<br /></div><div>I am using a column of numeric(20) type as a base for partitioning. The values of the column are generated randomly. </div><div>So there will be too many partitions if I use list partitioning as is.<br /></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Sorry, but why is range not suited for this? It would seem fairly trivial to create 50 or 1000 partitions to break up the range of values allowed by your field definition.</div></div></div>
</blockquote>