From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2019-06-07 05:34:20 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f9Cs6ibf2cY5gbd3EPLu+SEQLNR0w8S7fh31N+Dj6me7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 03:12, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think it'd be worthwhile to mention sub-partitioning.
In the attached I did briefly mention about sub-partitioning, however,
I didn't feel I had any very wise words to write about it other than
it can be useful to split up larger partitions.
I rather cheaply did the PG10 ones and just removed the mention about
PRIMARY KEYS and UNIQUE constraints. I also mention that PG11 is able
to handle "a few hundred partitions fairly well", and for PG10 I just
wrote that it's able to handle "a few hundred partitions" without the
"fairly well" part. master gets "a few thousand partitions fairly
well".
I also swapped out HASH for RANGE in the PG10 version which is not
quite perfect since its likely a customer ID would be a serial and
would fill the partitions one-by-one rather than more evenly as HASH
partitioning would.
Anyway comments welcome. If I had a few more minutes to spare I'd
have wrapped OLTP in <acronym> tags, but out of time for now.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
part_doc_master.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.3 KB |
part_doc_pg11.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.0 KB |
part_doc_pg10.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-06-07 06:26:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-07 05:10:07 | Re: behaviour change - default_tablesapce + partition table |