Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n9U3s-0007rQ-JC for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:36:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n9U3r-0005hE-DS for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:36:47 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n9U3r-0005h5-3M for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:36:47 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n9U3p-0000NK-00 for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:36:46 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 20HFahG04115873; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:36:43 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: "David G. Johnston" cc: Ron , Pgsql-admin Subject: Re: Large number of partitions of a table In-reply-to: References: <3919502.1642393668@sss.pgh.pa.us> <671340a5-1960-e5dc-1d09-4b7f36cda2c8@gmail.com> <3992395.1642431512@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" message dated "Mon, 17 Jan 2022 08:14:43 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4115871.1642433803.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:36:43 -0500 Message-ID: <4115872.1642433803@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk "David G. Johnston" writes: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 7:58 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> Ron writes: >>> 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. > Is "never" really the correct threshold here? It is if you've pushed things to the point where, say, "select count(*) from partitioned_table" will fail outright. I don't have a lot of faith in system designs that assume there will never be any ad-hoc queries that are outside your normal pattern. regards, tom lane