Re: pg12 partitions show bad performance vs pg96

From: Mariel Cherkassky <mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg12 partitions show bad performance vs pg96
Date: 2020-03-09 13:16:47
Message-ID: CA+t6e1mom1LeGYazaorrHtU3=yCRVjqBRVP0jCumKX2x-fqf7w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> Also, it's not required, but I think a typical partitioning schema would
> have
> an index on the column being partitioned. I see you have an index on
> iot_data(metadata,lower(data)), so I still wonder whether you'd have better
> results partitioned on metadata, or otherwise maybe adding an index on
> "device". But I don't know what your typical queries are.
>
> I understood now why u suggested an index on the partition column. It
depends on how many distinct values of the partition column I'll have in
that partition.
Thanks for the suggestion , good idea !

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2020-03-09 21:43:46 Re: pg12 partitions show bad performance vs pg96
Previous Message Mariel Cherkassky 2020-03-09 13:08:49 Re: pg12 partitions show bad performance vs pg96