| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(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 21:54:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_bFO4bxz+hkWu5YpGTS5HdogBDcr1Vaiw3f-MjnnRTkWg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 2:27 PM Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> pgbench_accounts is the only table that should grow to
> the point where partitioning can benefit the tpcb-like
> benchmark.
pgbench_history is append-only, so I could see the argument for
partitioning that.
> 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2025-01-31 22:22:43 | Re: postgresql.conf.sample ordering for IO, worker related GUCs |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-01-31 21:23:30 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |