From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions? |
Date: | 2019-06-10 09:10:24 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f-j19_NfbJrqn2XvnZAYECKSdPtisUGzZ+0aBdprh7KNA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 20:11, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 5:29 AM David Rowley
> > I also split this out into its own paragraph since it's talking about
> > something quite different from the previous paragraph.
>
> Did you miss to split? In v4 patches, I still see this point
> mentioned in the same paragraph that it was in before:
Not quite. I just changed my mind again after reading it through.
Since both paragraphs were talking about the number of partitions I
decided they should be the same paragraph after all.
> > I've reworded
> > this slightly and it now says "what will the implications be if in
> > several years you instead find yourself with a large number of small
> > customers."
>
> I suggest "consider the implications" in place of "what will the
> implications be...". Also a user may choose a particular design (one
> partition per customer) *because* of their business situation (small
> number of large customers), so I suggest linking the two clauses with
> "because". With these two changes, the whole sentence will read more
> connected, imho:
The disconnect there is on purpose. I don't really want to suggest
they chose to partition by customer because they have a small number
of large customers. The choice to partition by customer could well
have come from "customer_id = ..." always being present in WHERE
clauses and they may be fooled into thinking it's a good idea to
partition by that because of that fact. I'm hoping the text there
points out that it might not always be a good choice.
I have slightly reworded it to be a bit closer to your suggestion, but
I maintained the disconnect.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
part_doc_master_v5.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.3 KB |
part_doc_pg10_v5.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.0 KB |
part_doc_pg11_v5.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2019-06-10 09:34:36 | Re: Why to index a "Recently DEAD" tuple when creating index |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-06-10 09:09:53 | Re: Missing generated column in ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN doc |