From: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:44:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1286217866.28987.14.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CAA1E1B.8080505@agliodbs.com>
References: <4CA672D7.3070405@agliodbs.com>
<1548.1285977377@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4CA67580.7070003@agliodbs.com>
<6813.1285978581@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4CAA1E1B.8080505@agliodbs.com>
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:34 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > And your point is? The design center for the current setup is maybe 5
> > or 10 partitions. We didn't intend it to be used for more partitions
> > than you might have spindles to spread the data across.
>
> Where did that come from?
Yeah that is a bit odd. I don't recall any discussion in regards to such
a weird limitation.
> It certainly wasn't anywhere when the feature
> was introduced. Simon intended for this version of partitioning to
> scale to 100-200 partitions (and it does, provided that you dump all
> other table constraints), and partitioning has nothing to do with
> spindles. I think you're getting it mixed up with tablespaces.
Great! that would be an excellent addition.
>
> The main reason for partitioning is ease of maintenance (VACUUM,
> dropping partitions, etc.) not any kind of I/O optimization.
Well that is certainly "a" main reason but it is not "the" main reason.
We have lots of customers using it to manage very large amounts of data
using the constraint exclusion features (and gaining from the smaller
index sizes).
Jd
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
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: jd@commandprompt.com, josh@agliodbs.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants
In-Reply-To: <1286217866.28987.14.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.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