Re: All Taxi Services need Index Clustered Heap Append - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: All Taxi Services need Index Clustered Heap Append
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f-dCSYDvMdz=6NCE2KYQp-38sdnBCBL8MHpuMFQ_iRrTA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to All Taxi Services need Index Clustered Heap Append  (Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>)
Responses Re: All Taxi Services need Index Clustered Heap Append  (Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 3 March 2018 at 05:30, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net> wrote:
> Our options were:
>
>  - partitioning. Not entirely trivial when your id is uuid. To get visible
> gains, we need to make sure each driver gets their own partition. That would
> leave us with 50 000(+) tables, and rumors say that in that's what is done
> in some bigger taxi service, and relcache then eats up all the RAM and
> system OOMs.

It's a good job someone invented HASH partitioning then.

It would be interesting to hear how your benchmarks go using current
master + the faster partition pruning patchset [1].  Currently, HASH
partitioning does exist in master, just there's no partition pruning
for the non-matching partitions, which is why you need [1].

I think trying with something like 500-1000 partitions might be a good
place to start.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0f96dd16-f5d5-7301-4ddf-858d41a6cbe3@lab.ntt.co.jp

--
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
Next
From: "Tels"
Date:
Subject: Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #1)