From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Colin Taylor" <colin(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: table partioning performance |
Date: | 2007-01-08 15:39:21 |
Message-ID: | C1C7A5A9.17730%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Colin,
On 1/6/07 8:37 PM, "Colin Taylor" <colin(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi there, we've partioned a table (using 8.2) by day due to the 50TB of data
> (500k row size, 100G rows) we expect to store it in a year.
> Our performance on inserts and selects against the master table is
> disappointing, 10x slower (with ony 1 partition constraint) than we get by
> going to the partioned table directly. Browsing the list I get the impression
> this just a case of too many partitions? would be better off doing partitions
> of partitions ?
Can you post an "explain analyze" of your query here so we can see what's
going on?
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-08 16:28:07 | Re: [PATCHES] [Fwd: Index Advisor] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-08 15:27:15 | Re: BUG #2873: Function that returns an empty set with a 'not null' domain errors in 8.2 but not 8.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-08 18:09:16 | Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2007-01-08 09:18:19 | Re: tweaking under repeatable load |