public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
To: atma ram <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Question on PostgreSQL Table Partitioning – Performance of Queries That Do Not Use the Partition Key
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:03:20 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA1Yw986mfAV8MijYz+nGgCgcbKFiEm7baDazPo=sB=QvaO7Zg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA1Yw9-rOunXTb8DEPCZKkEts1gj3oThKidCSVn6egVe9W4-UQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAA1Yw986mfAV8MijYz+nGgCgcbKFiEm7baDazPo=sB=QvaO7Zg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 2025-11-26 at 21:59 +0530, atma ram wrote:
> The table size is 1.6TB and not GB. My bad.
> 
> The queries using primary key or partition key will be definitely improved.

That's not what I would expect, but if you tested it, ok.

> My question is 20 queries that do not use partition key and use only index.
> Since this is a critical OLTP system, even if there is a slight chance that
> those 20 queries will degrade performance, then we may not go with partition
> and find any alternative ways. Hence the question. 

I am pretty sure that the performance will be (at least slightly) worse.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

view thread (2+ messages)

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Question on PostgreSQL Table Partitioning – Performance of Queries That Do Not Use the Partition Key
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox