Re: Question on overall design

From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: veem v <veema0000(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Question on overall design
Date: 2023-12-11 09:41:39
Message-ID: CAFCRh-_T34JN-1gfKfNOmLb=C-+wrSHY8qwG2bc+Ord=vbQzew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 5:56 PM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> * We departitioned because SELECT statements were *slow*. All partitions
> were scanned, even when the partition key was specified in the WHERE clause.
>

Surely that's no the case on newer PostgreSQL, is it? Otherwise what's the
point of partitioning?
Also, I remember reading something about recent improvements with a large
number of partitions, no?

As someone who's interested on partitioning, I'd appreciate details.
Thanks, --DD

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Travers 2023-12-11 10:00:17 Re: running \copy through perl dbi ?
Previous Message veem v 2023-12-11 08:59:21 Re: Question on overall design