| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing contention for the LockMgrLock |
| Date: | 2005-12-08 17:27:35 |
| Message-ID: | 8764pzh52w.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> That's a fair point, and reinforces my instinct that having a large
> number of partitions would be a losing game. But you are mistaken to
> think that the number of hot-spot tables is the only limit on the number
> of usable partitions. It's the number of their indexes that matters most.
Hm, so hypothetically an insert or update on a table with 4 indexes which have
been split into 4 partitions would need to touch each partition?
Would that defeat the benefits of the partitioning? Or enhance it?
Would it be better to ensure that the indexes of a single table ended up in
the same partition? Or to ensure they're spread across partitions?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-12-08 17:35:25 | Re: generalizing the planner knobs |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-12-08 17:15:01 | Re: [PATCHES] Inherited Constraints |