| From: | Victor Sudakov <vas(at)sibptus(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |
| Date: | 2022-01-17 05:38:15 |
| Message-ID: | YeUAx56Juri43xGY@admin.sibptus.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Tom Lane wrote:
[dd]
> The specific point that depesz was responding to in that blog
> was the 64K-ish limit on rangetable entries in a query. That is
> a thing, as he could have shown by using queries that weren't
> amenable to plan-time pruning. (It's also an ex-thing, having
> been fixed for v15 [1]; but that doesn't help you today.)
> Now, if you use no queries that can't be pruned to a few
> partitions, then it's academic for you.
The table will be partitioned `BY LIST (customer_id)` which is a unique
index. All queries will be using this index so no query should ever
have to use more than 1 partition.
This means basically I'm OK?
--
Victor Sudakov VAS4-RIPE
http://vas.tomsk.ru/
2:5005/49(at)fidonet
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Halat-Pruvot Sylvie | 2022-01-17 13:36:33 | RE: postgresql wait event and high active connection |
| Previous Message | Victor Sudakov | 2022-01-17 05:17:37 | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |