From: | Victor Sudakov <vas(at)sibptus(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |
Date: | 2022-01-19 10:27:33 |
Message-ID: | YefnlQRGBnWj4YbF@admin.sibptus.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Ron wrote:
[dd]
> >
> > What about the system catalogs however? Will the extra 10000
> > tables and 500000 indexes negatively impact the performance of the
> > system catalogs? Are there any caveats you could think of?
>
> EXPLAIN plans are going to be hilariously gigantic, which means that query
> planning would take a loooong time,
No, I'm not observing this for my test queries. With
enable_partition_pruning=on (which is the default) all the queries
I've tested look neat and short.
> And the query planner (in v12, at
> least) can generate some pretty bad plans in partitioned tables; I bet there
> are edge cases in the QP code that don't work well with 10000 partitions and
> 50000 indices.
Actually "5.11.6. Best Practices for Declarative Partitioning" says
"The query planner is generally able to handle partition hierarchies
with up to a few thousand partitions fairly well, provided that
typical queries allow the query planner to prune all but a small
number of partitions."
I admit 10000 partitions is slightly more than "a few thousand". "A
few" sounds to me like 3-5.
--
Victor Sudakov VAS4-RIPE
http://vas.tomsk.ru/
2:5005/49(at)fidonet
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Victor Sudakov | 2022-01-19 10:30:25 | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |
Previous Message | Ketan Popat | 2022-01-19 04:33:46 | Re: Large number of partitions of a table |