From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Hammond <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: index sizes: single table vs partitioned |
Date: | 2011-08-10 12:20:25 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobWEVjmLOAhg6B-zButGYeqTp67L6OzFuHQryWETeZhoQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Hammond
<andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For a large table, should there be a difference in index sizes between a
> single table representation and representation based on multiple partitions
> with identical indexes?
This isn't really the right mailing list for this question; this is a
mailing list for the development team. I would suggest trying this on
-general.
I wouldn't expect there to be a big difference, but your email is
light on the sort of details that might enable someone to speculate on
what is going on in your particular case.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-08-10 12:34:24 | Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-10 12:19:01 | Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup |