From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
To: Amit Sharma <amitpgsql@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: List Based Table Partitioning on non-Primary Key Columns
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:04:13 -0600
Message-ID: <A2497CED-0CF2-4DF8-B041-8E4793A884E8@elevated-dev.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHER7Lq9jQdhPofpsS2VpvLhBgEDzzY_9QgNHZ5-A2a8xk_eLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHER7Lq9jQdhPofpsS2VpvLhBgEDzzY_9QgNHZ5-A2a8xk_eLQ@mail.gmail.com>
> On Oct 16, 2023, at 2:55 PM, Amit Sharma <amitpgsql@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My question is, is there any downside of using a similar partition option in PostgreSQL from performance or manageability perspective? Has anyone dealt with a similar type of partition issues? Is there any other alternate option we should be using?
It's not unreasonable. But an alternative is to have a set, fewer, number of partitions and hash partition. You could wind up with better balanced partitions, and the cost of on average larger partitions.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com, amitpgsql@gmail.com, pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: List Based Table Partitioning on non-Primary Key Columns
In-Reply-To: <A2497CED-0CF2-4DF8-B041-8E4793A884E8@elevated-dev.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox