From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Large number of partitions of a table
In-reply-to: <671340a5-1960-e5dc-1d09-4b7f36cda2c8@gmail.com>
References: <YeTYA63gEXNePfkv@admin.sibptus.ru>
 <3919502.1642393668@sss.pgh.pa.us> <YeUAx56Juri43xGY@admin.sibptus.ru>
 <671340a5-1960-e5dc-1d09-4b7f36cda2c8@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 17 Jan 2022 08:41:34 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3992394.1642431512.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:58:32 -0500
Message-ID: <3992395.1642431512@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3992395.1642431512%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/16/22 11:38 PM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
>> so no query should ever have to use more than 1 partition.

> I find it hard to believe that you'll *never* run a report against more 
> customers than are in a single partition.

Yeah, I'm a little suspicious of that.  The other thing I'd be worried
about, given that the OP is using v13, is that UPDATE/DELETE planning
performance can be pretty awful with lots of partitions.  There were
some O(N^2) behaviors in there that we didn't get rid of till v14.

			regards, tom lane