Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Stacy White
Subject Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning?
Date
Msg-id 001d01c52cd6$9702be10$0200a8c0@grownups
Whole thread Raw
In response to What needs to be done for real Partitioning?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-performance
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > -- INSERT INTO should automatically create new partitions where
necessary
> > -- DELETE FROM should automatically drop empty partitions
>
> I am not sure I agree with either of those, and the reason is that they
> would turn low-lock operations into high-lock operations.

I second this.  We're current using an inheritance based partitioning scheme
with automatic partition creation in the application code, and have seen at
least one case of deadlock due to partition creation.

Other phase II/III items might include:

- Modify the partitioning scheme of a table.  In the above example, adding a
'200504' partition, and moving the '200502' orders into 'ARCHIVE'

- The ability to place a partition in a tablespace.  In the example above,
it would be nice to put the 'ARCHIVE' partition would likely be placed on a
slower set of disks than the most recent month's partition.

- Global indexes (that is to say, an index spanning the the table rather
than an individual partition).  This seems counterintuitive, but they've
dramatically increased performance on one of our Oracle systems and should
at least be worth considering.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: PFC
Date:
Subject: Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning?
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning?