Re: Table Partitions / Partial Indexes - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Table Partitions / Partial Indexes
Date
Msg-id 1134515825.27873.122.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Table Partitions / Partial Indexes  (Mike C <smith.not.western@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Table Partitions / Partial Indexes  (Mike C <smith.not.western@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 15:07 +1300, Mike C wrote:

> Partitioning on date range doesn't make much sense for this setup,
> where a typical 1-month query spans both tables (as the billing month
> for the customer might start midway through a calendar month).

Maybe not for queries, but if you use a date range then you never need
to run a DELETE and never need to VACUUM.

You could split the data into two-day chunks.

> Am I using a horrid method for partitioning the data? (% 10)

No, but what benefit do you think it provides. I'm not sure I see...

> Should there be that big of an improvement for multiple tables given
> that all the data is still stored on the same filesystem?

You could store partitions in separate tablespaces/filesystems.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: query from partitions
Next
From: "Tomeh, Husam"
Date:
Subject: Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex