Re: index sizes: single table vs partitioned

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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