Re: Partitioning by status? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Andreas Kretschmer
Subject Re: Partitioning by status?
Date
Msg-id 20120110170937.GA20023@tux
Whole thread Raw
In response to Partitioning by status?  (Mike Blackwell <mike.blackwell@rrd.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Mike Blackwell <mike.blackwell@rrd.com> wrote:

> We have a set of large tables.  One of the columns is a status indicator
> (active / archived).  The queries against these tables almost always include
> the status, so partitioning against that seems to makes sense from a logical
> standpoint, especially given most of the data is "archived" and most of the
> processes want active records.
>
> Is it practical to partition on the status column and, eg, use triggers to move
> a row between the two partitions when status is updated?  Any surprises to
> watch for, given the status column is actually NULL for active data and
> contains a value when archived?

If i where you, i would try a partial index where status is null. But
yes, partitioning is an other option, depends on your workload.


Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect.                              (Linus Torvalds)
"If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly."   (unknown)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe.              N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Query planner doesn't use index scan on tsvector GIN index if LIMIT is specifiedQuery planner doesn't use index scan on tsvector GIN index if LIMIT is specified
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failure "contrib" issue?