Re: Planner performance in partitions

From: Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Piotr Włodarczyk <piotrwlodarczyk89(at)gmail(dot)com>, MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA(at)sqlexec(dot)com>, Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr(dot)wlodarczyk(at)gnb(dot)pl>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Planner performance in partitions
Date: 2019-08-12 22:37:26
Message-ID: CAHOFxGr3TG4OAHGvkXKhHbF-h2JaXR5+djDkA6o=MsquXkLAsQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Was there a reason to exceed 100-500 partitions in real life that pushed
you to do this test? Is there some issue you see when using 100 partitions
that is solved or reduced in severity by increasing to 1200 or 6000
partitions?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luís Roberto Weck 2019-08-12 22:43:54 Re:
Previous Message Michael Lewis 2019-08-12 22:35:44 Re: Last event per user