Re: Extend pgbench partitioning to pgbench_history - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Abhijit Menon-Sen |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Extend pgbench partitioning to pgbench_history |
Date | |
Msg-id | ZaZuMQ20_IvEJa5k@toroid.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Extend pgbench partitioning to pgbench_history (Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Extend pgbench partitioning to pgbench_history
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
At 2023-11-30 11:29:15 +0100, gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com wrote: > > With the attached patch, I extend the partitioning capability to the > pgbench_history table too. > > I have been thinking of adding an option to control this, but I preferred > to ask in this list whether it really makes sense or not (I struggle indeed > to see use cases where accounts is partitioned and history is not). I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I also can't think of a reason to want to create partitions for pgbench_accounts but leave out pgbench_history. > From ba8f507b126a9c5bd22dd40bb8ce0c1f0c43ac59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com> > Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:02:39 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] Include pgbench_history in partitioning method for pgbench > > In case partitioning, make sure that pgbench_history is also partitioned with > the same criteria. I think "If partitioning" or "If we're creating partitions" would read better here. Also, same criteria as what? Maybe you could just add "as pgbench_accounts" to the end. > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml > index 05d3f81619..4c02d2a61d 100644 > --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml > […] > @@ -378,9 +378,9 @@ pgbench <optional> <replaceable>options</replaceable> </optional> <replaceable>d > <term><option>--partitions=<replaceable>NUM</replaceable></option></term> > <listitem> > <para> > - Create a partitioned <literal>pgbench_accounts</literal> table with > - <replaceable>NUM</replaceable> partitions of nearly equal size for > - the scaled number of accounts. > + Create partitioned <literal>pgbench_accounts</literal> and <literal>pgbench_history</literal> > + tables with <replaceable>NUM</replaceable> partitions of nearly equal size for > + the scaled number of accounts - and future history records. > Default is <literal>0</literal>, meaning no partitioning. > </para> I would just leave out the "-" and write "number of accounts and future history records". > diff --git a/src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c b/src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c > index 2e1650d0ad..87adaf4d8f 100644 > --- a/src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c > +++ b/src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c > […] > @@ -889,8 +889,10 @@ usage(void) > " --index-tablespace=TABLESPACE\n" > " create indexes in the specified tablespace\n" > " --partition-method=(range|hash)\n" > - " partition pgbench_accounts with this method (default: range)\n" > - " --partitions=NUM partition pgbench_accounts into NUM parts (default: 0)\n" > + " partition pgbench_accounts and pgbench_history with this method" > + " (default: range)." > + " --partitions=NUM partition pgbench_accounts and pgbench_history into NUM parts" > + " (default: 0)\n" > " --tablespace=TABLESPACE create tables in the specified tablespace\n" > " --unlogged-tables create tables as unlogged tables\n" > "\nOptions to select what to run:\n" There's a missing newline after "(default: range).". I read through the rest of the patch closely. It looks fine to me. It applies, builds, and does create the partitions as intended. -- Abhijit
pgsql-hackers by date: