| From: | Conor Walsh <ctw(at)adverb(dot)ly> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgre Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Table partitioning problem |
| Date: | 2011-03-14 20:22:20 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimaeV6LvFAR1tZ=UN8AEJmQxFRbR_WPPBU34XFg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Generally, table partitioning is not a good idea unless you are
> dealing with really large tables, and nearly all of your queries apply
> only to a single partition. Most likely you are better off not using
> table inheritance in the first place if you need this feature.
I don't know if my tables count as 'large' or not, but I've gotten
some good mileage in the past out of time-based partitioning and
setting higher compression levels on old tables. Also the ability to
drop-and-reload a day is sometimes useful, but I grant that it would
be better to never need to do that.
-C.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-15 00:56:43 | Re: Bug in the planner? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-14 19:40:33 | Re: Table partitioning problem |