From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Mike C <smith.not.western@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Table Partitions / Partial Indexes
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:17:05 +0000
Message-ID: <1134515825.27873.122.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bd0eabd0512111807q6b54115q2477c7c2a37f1c1a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <bd0eabd0512111807q6b54115q2477c7c2a37f1c1a@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 15:07 +1300, Mike C wrote:
> Partitioning on date range doesn't make much sense for this setup,
> where a typical 1-month query spans both tables (as the billing month
> for the customer might start midway through a calendar month).
Maybe not for queries, but if you use a date range then you never need
to run a DELETE and never need to VACUUM.
You could split the data into two-day chunks.
> Am I using a horrid method for partitioning the data? (% 10)
No, but what benefit do you think it provides. I'm not sure I see...
> Should there be that big of an improvement for multiple tables given
> that all the data is still stored on the same filesystem?
You could store partitions in separate tablespaces/filesystems.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, smith.not.western@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Table Partitions / Partial Indexes
In-Reply-To: <1134515825.27873.122.camel@localhost.localdomain>
* 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