Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions?
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f9Cs6ibf2cY5gbd3EPLu+SEQLNR0w8S7fh31N+Dj6me7w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions?
Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions?
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 03:12, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I think it'd be worthwhile to mention sub-partitioning.

In the attached I did briefly mention about sub-partitioning, however,
I didn't feel I had any very wise words to write about it other than
it can be useful to split up larger partitions.

I rather cheaply did the PG10 ones and just removed the mention about
PRIMARY KEYS and UNIQUE constraints. I also mention that PG11 is able
to handle "a few hundred partitions fairly well", and for PG10 I just
wrote that it's able to handle "a few hundred partitions" without the
"fairly well" part. master gets "a few thousand partitions fairly
well".

I also swapped out HASH for RANGE in the PG10 version which is not
quite perfect since its likely a customer ID would be a serial and
would fill the partitions one-by-one rather than more evenly as HASH
partitioning would.

Anyway comments welcome.  If I had a few more minutes to spare I'd
have wrapped OLTP in <acronym> tags, but out of time for now.

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: behaviour change - default_tablesapce + partition table
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum