From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: suggestion about time based partitioning and hibernate |
Date: | 2023-07-20 16:52:35 |
Message-ID: | f442c75b-49b3-e273-eefc-1641c04d6f7d@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 7/20/23 10:31, Luca Ferrari wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 6:45 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> Therefore I suggest to avoid doing
>> that. Either look at some other partitioning scheme that doesn't
>> involve adding columns to the primary key, or disregard partitioning for
>> this table entirely.
> What do you mean by "other partitioning scheme"? There is nothing that
> comes into my mind at the moment.
> The problem is that, unluckily, the table is already greater than 50GB
> in seize and is keep growing, so I guess something has to be done, at
> least for a manainance point of view.
>
> Would a partition by hash on the single column primary key be such a bad idea?
Just do a range partition by the existing PK.
--
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albrecht Dreß | 2023-07-20 17:18:39 | pg_upgradecluster fails if pg_hba.conf contains "@file" entries |
Previous Message | Chuck Davis | 2023-07-20 16:44:35 | Re: My 1st JDBC and PostgreSQL |