| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sergey Tatarintsev <s(dot)tatarintsev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench with partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2025-01-31 22:24:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0uqt8=W1ruVZ1Cx8oKa7L8BB-bepN2u5_iVd=aO38z0-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > IMO, If there is a good reason to allow the other pgbench
> > tables to be partitioned, that may be better to think
> > about. I am not sure there is though.
>
> see this thread [1] proposing partitioning pgbench_history last year.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAAKRu_Zo8ST-Qk8VQ4KFkbMQcqJsQQz5r%2BYRRbecS3avgkoZhw%40mail.gmail.com#ca9397c201ed483cb02f07dcaaa2773c
I don't see the partitioning history being beneficial for the
built-in workloads, but it may make sense to partition the
history table if you intend to run a custom benchmark that
includes reading specific accounts from the history table.
Partitioning by date range as you suggest [1] makes sense as well.
Maybe It will be good to provide more flexibility around which
tables to partition and the partition key(s) for the pgbench schema so
to benchmark different partition strategies.
Regards,
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-01-31 22:25:34 | Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-01-31 22:23:22 | Re: pgbench with partitioned tables |