| From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |
| Date: | 2022-01-17 17:28:15 |
| Message-ID: | 6c8f3a3d-e3c3-10c6-8311-b01606b937e7@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 1/17/22 9:14 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 7:58 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
>
> Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>> writes:
> > On 1/16/22 11:38 PM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> >> so no query should ever have to use more than 1 partition.
>
> > I find it hard to believe that you'll *never* run a report against more
> > customers than are in a single partition.
>
> Yeah, I'm a little suspicious of that.
>
>
> Is "never" really the correct threshold here?
That's what OP wrote, and that's what we're dubious about. Users who know a
bit too much to be dangerous write a scary about of unexpected queries.
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Ribe | 2022-01-17 17:37:52 | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-17 15:36:43 | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |