Re: Partitioning and performance - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ravi Krishna
Subject Re: Partitioning and performance
Date
Msg-id CACER=P0vFkKb9v3gkzECzVkM6=df5LP9s-Cs9SUycN3huAkddg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioning and performance  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Partitioning and performance  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
> By and large, though, this doesn't really matter, since an empty
> parent table won't cost anything much to scan.  If it's significant
> relative to the child table access time then you probably didn't
> need partitioning in the first place.

Is there a rule of thumb as to at what size does the partitioning
start performing better than non partitioned table.


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL Streaming Failure PostgreSQL 9.4
Next
From: Ravi Krishna
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning and performance