Re: Hash partitioning. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: Hash partitioning.
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1x0VBcNhunxF_qkVbOOSYvakpUi4O1aRBQKZHkR-U7f_Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hash partitioning.  (Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barbier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barbier@gmail.com> wrote:

My reasoning was: To determine which index block to update (typically
one in both the partitioned and non-partitioned cases), one needs to
walk the index first, which supposedly causes one additional (read)
I/O in the non-partitioned case on average, because there is one extra
level and the lower part of the index is not cached (because of the
size of the index).

But the "extra level" is up at the top where it is well cached, not at the bottom where it is not.

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: updated emacs configuration