Re: How Many Partitions are Good Performing

This is the blog post that Rakesh referenced:
https://blog.timescale.com/time-series-data-postgresql-10-vs-timescaledb-816ee808bac5

Please note, this analysis is done in the context of working with
time-series data, where 1000s of chunks is not uncommon because of the
append-mostly nature of the workload.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com>
wrote:

>
> You should have read carefully what I wrote. 1000 is not an upper
> limit. 1000 partition is the number after which performance starts
> dropping .
>
> There is a blog in www.timescale.com which also highlights the same.
>
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 at 6:20 PM
> From: "Kumar, Virendra" <Virendra(dot)Kumar(at)guycarp(dot)com>
> To: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Subject: How Many Partitions are Good Performing
>
> Can somebody tell us how many partitions are good number without impacting
> the performance. We are hearing around a thousand, is that a limit. Do we
> have plan to increase the number of partitions for a table. We would
> appreciate if somebody can help us with this?
>
> Regards,
> Virendra
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain
> information that is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the
> message
> and its attachments and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
>
>

--
TimescaleDB* | *Growth & Developer Evangelism
c: 908.581.9509

335 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017
http://www.timescale.com/
https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb