From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Finnerty, Jim <jfinnert@amazon.com>
Cc: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: parse partition strategy string in gram.y
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 20:50:24 -0400
Message-ID: <3930526.1666659024@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221024161317.3ywktkv2ghqpp4as@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20221024161317.3ywktkv2ghqpp4as@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2022-Oct-24, Finnerty, Jim wrote:
>> The advantage of hash partition bounds is that they are not
>> domain-specific, as they are for ordinary RANGE partitions, but they
>> are more flexible than MODULUS/REMAINDER partition bounds.
I'm more than a bit skeptical of that claim. Under what
circumstances (other than a really awful hash function,
perhaps) would it make sense to not use equi-sized hash
partitions? If you can predict that more stuff is going
to go into one partition than another, then you need to
fix your hash function, not invent more complication for
the core partitioning logic.
regards, tom lane
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, jfinnert@amazon.com, japinli@hotmail.com, pryzby@telsasoft.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: parse partition strategy string in gram.y
In-Reply-To: <3930526.1666659024@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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