| From: | Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tim Uckun <timuckun(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a reasonable maximum number for table partitions? |
| Date: | 2015-02-13 16:12:13 |
| Message-ID: | CALd+dcerGnZRpheSkNV196G7UDHF5+SpTY=Cb-V1Bq=qwibp_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Tim Uckun <timuckun(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Does anybody have experience with huge number of partitions if so where
> did you start running into trouble?
>
I use an arbitrary 100-way split for a lot of tracking info. Just modulo
100 on the ID column. I've never had any issues with that. If you can
adjust your queries to pick the right partition ahead of time, which I am
able to do for many queries, the number of partitions shouldn't matter
much. Only rarely do I need to query the primary table.
I don't think your plan for 365 partitions is outrageous on modern large
hardware. For 1000 partitions, I don't know. It will depend on how you can
optimize your queries before giving them to postgres.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Moran | 2015-02-13 16:15:57 | Re: What's a reasonable maximum number for table partitions? |
| Previous Message | David G Johnston | 2015-02-13 15:45:12 | Re: infinite recursion detected in rules for relation |