When to use PARTITION BY HASH? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Oleksandr Shulgin
Subject When to use PARTITION BY HASH?
Date
Msg-id CACACo5StuUuFox+65KQHB8u+51kMUcEeQuV=XmsUv7d8VnaO7A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?  (MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>)
Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?  (MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>)
Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?  (Michel Pelletier <pelletier.michel@gmail.com>)
Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?  (Michel Pelletier <pelletier.michel@gmail.com>)
Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-general
Hi!

I was reading up on declarative partitioning[1] and I'm not sure what could be a possible application of Hash partitioning.

Is anyone actually using it?  What are typical use cases?  What benefits does such a partitioning scheme provide?

On its face, it seems that it can only give you a number of tables which are smaller than the un-partitioned one, but I fail to see how it would provide any of the potential advantages listed in the documentation.

With a reasonable hash function, the distribution of rows across partitions should be more or less equal, so I wouldn't expect any of the following to hold true:
- "...most of the heavily accessed rows of the table are in a single partition or a small number of partitions."
- "Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing partitions...",
etc.

That *might* turn out to be the case with a small number of distinct values in the partitioning column(s), but then why rely on hash assignment instead of using PARTITION BY LIST in the first place?

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Michael Nolan
Date:
Subject: Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment
Next
From: MichaelDBA
Date:
Subject: Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?