Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David Wilson
Subject Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions
Date
Msg-id AANLkTikU0uEN15wpHlEY-73TWzaA0aWyRlOA1C3mCz87@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions  (Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
Responses Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions  (Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>)
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions  (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>)
List pgsql-general


On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it> wrote:
> For "inserts" I do not see the reason
> why
> it would be better to use index partitioning because AFAIK
> b-tree
> would behave exactly the same in both cases.

no, when the index gets very big inserting random values gets
very slow.

Do you have any empirical evidence for this being a real problem, or are you simply guessing? I have tables with 500m+ rows, on commodity hardware (4 SATA disks in raid 10), and inserts to the indexes on those tables remain quite acceptable from a performance standpoint.

--
- David T. Wilson
david.t.wilson@gmail.com

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Frank Church
Date:
Subject: What are the minimal files required to backup a postgresql database
Next
From: Peter Hunsberger
Date:
Subject: Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions