| From: | David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
| Cc: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions |
| Date: | 2010-06-14 12:27:49 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikU0uEN15wpHlEY-73TWzaA0aWyRlOA1C3mCz87@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
> > For "inserts" I do not see the reason
> > why
> > it would be better to use index partitioning because AFAIK
> > b-tree
> > would behave exactly the same in both cases.
>
> no, when the index gets very big inserting random values gets
> very slow.
>
Do you have any empirical evidence for this being a real problem, or are you
simply guessing? I have tables with 500m+ rows, on commodity hardware (4
SATA disks in raid 10), and inserts to the indexes on those tables remain
quite acceptable from a performance standpoint.
--
- David T. Wilson
david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Hunsberger | 2010-06-14 12:38:27 | Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions |
| Previous Message | Frank Church | 2010-06-14 12:20:25 | What are the minimal files required to backup a postgresql database |