Re: List Based Table Partitioning on non-Primary Key Columns

From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>
To: Amit Sharma <amitpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: List Based Table Partitioning on non-Primary Key Columns
Date: 2023-10-16 21:04:13
Message-ID: A2497CED-0CF2-4DF8-B041-8E4793A884E8@elevated-dev.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

> On Oct 16, 2023, at 2:55 PM, Amit Sharma <amitpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> My question is, is there any downside of using a similar partition option in PostgreSQL from performance or manageability perspective? Has anyone dealt with a similar type of partition issues? Is there any other alternate option we should be using?

It's not unreasonable. But an alternative is to have a set, fewer, number of partitions and hash partition. You could wind up with better balanced partitions, and the cost of on average larger partitions.

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Banck 2023-10-16 21:40:12 Re: Auto Vacuum Question
Previous Message Amit Sharma 2023-10-16 20:55:03 List Based Table Partitioning on non-Primary Key Columns