Re: Partitioning into thousands of tables? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Joshua Tolley
Subject Re: Partitioning into thousands of tables?
Date
Msg-id 4c5c1767.0a64730a.467a.6789@mx.google.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Partitioning into thousands of tables?  (Data Growth Pty Ltd <datagrowth@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Partitioning into thousands of tables?
Re: Partitioning into thousands of tables?
List pgsql-general
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:10:30PM +1000, Data Growth Pty Ltd wrote:
>    Is there any significant performance problem associated with partitioning
>    a table into 2500 sub-tables?  I realise a table scan would be horrendous,
>    but what if all accesses specified the partitioning criteria "sid".  Such
>    a scheme would be the simplest to maintain (I think) with the best
>    localisation of writes.

I seem to remember some discussion on pgsql-hackers recently about the number
of partitions and its effect on performance, especially planning time.
Unfortunately I can't find it right now, but in general the conclusion was
it's bad to have lots of partitions, where "lots" is probably 100 or more.

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com

Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re:
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning into thousands of tables?