| From: | Justin <zzzzz(dot)graf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alec Lazarescu <alecl(at)alecl(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marc Millas <marc(dot)millas(at)mokadb(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, veem v <veema0000(at)gmail(dot)com>, sud <suds1434(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning options |
| Date: | 2024-02-20 17:59:07 |
| Message-ID: | CALL-XeOc48E8t=8kgAZ3ANfJibBYPR5ifBoh9MtQG0i1KyedsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 5:20 PM Alec Lazarescu <alecl(at)alecl(dot)com> wrote:
> "Would probably look at a nested partitioning"
>
> I'm not the original poster, but I have a schema with nested
> (composite) partitions and I do run into some significant
> inefficiencies compared to flat partitions in various schema metadata
> operations (queries to get the list of tables, creating foreign keys,
> etc.) in tables with 1,000+ total partitions.
>
> One example:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE%2BE%3DSQacy6t_3XzCWnY1eiRcNWfz4pp02FER0N7mU_F%2Bo8G_Q%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Alec
>
>
>
Hi Alec,
would need to see the DDL of the partitions and the queries accessing these
partitions to have an opinion
Thank you
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | sud | 2024-02-20 21:19:20 | Question on Table creation |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-02-20 16:13:21 | Re: Mat Views and Conflicts |