From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: ROHIT SACHDEVA <sachdeva.rohit648@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Related To Hash Partition
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKDb7aHVoBa-C-EABeBZhgndZWtNqoZ1feOO3S9A6qLbyH8tMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKDb7aHVoBa-C-EABeBZhgndZWtNqoZ1feOO3S9A6qLbyH8tMA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to ROHIT SACHDEVA <sachdeva.rohit648@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sun, 23 Apr 2023 12:34:15 +0530"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3840293.1682262454.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 11:07:34 -0400
Message-ID: <3840294.1682262454@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3840294.1682262454%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

ROHIT SACHDEVA <sachdeva.rohit648@gmail.com> writes:
> While using hash partition i am facing the problem that the data is not
> going into the proper partition table .

Define "proper".  It's generally best to assume that the hash function
is a black box --- if you assume you know which partition a given key
value will be mapped to, you are doing something very fragile, and people
will have no sympathy for you when it breaks.

If you want a predictable mapping, use list or range partitioning,
not hash.

			regards, tom lane