From: | Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mariel Cherkassky <mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg12 - migrate tables to partitions structure |
Date: | 2019-09-18 20:56:22 |
Message-ID: | CAHOFxGpowLyS1gDzc6CMLVzpE2AmoQzxUpFads98aCJxkan7Xg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Is this being done because it can be, or is it solving a real-life pain
point? Just wondering what the perspective is here.
Much of partitioning strategy seems to me to revolve around how the system
is used, and not just the schema and what is possible. For instance, you
can mimic primary and foreign key behavior with triggers as described here,
and that would bypass some of the restrictions on what can be done.
https://www.depesz.com/2018/10/02/foreign-key-to-partitioned-table/
This would allow you to change out the primary key for a simple index
perhaps, and partition however you want. Just because something can be
done, does not mean it should be.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2019-09-19 10:09:32 | Surprising benchmark count(1) vs. count(*) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-18 20:39:37 | Re: Question regarding fast-hashing in PGSQL |