Re: table partioning performance - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Steven Flatt
Subject Re: table partioning performance
Date
Msg-id 357fa7590701101339m53a4b12foc805ff0060be609b@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: table partioning performance  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>)
Responses Re: table partioning performance
List pgsql-performance
On 1/10/07, Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:
Except for the simplest partitioning cases, you'll be much better off
using a trigger on the parent table to direct inserts/updates/deletes to
the children. As a bonus, using a trigger makes it a lot more realistic
to deal with an update moving data between partitions.
 
In our application, data is never moved between partitions.
 
The problem I found with triggers is the non-robustness of the PLpgSQL record data type.  For example, in an "on insert" trigger, I can't determine the fields of the NEW record unless I hard code the column names into the trigger.  This makes it hard to write a generic trigger, which I can use for all our partitioned tables.  It would have been somewhat of a pain to write a separate trigger for each of our partitioned tables.
 
For that and other reasons, we moved some of the insert logic up to the application level in our product.
 
Steve
 

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jeremy Haile"
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning