From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Stacy White <harsh@computer.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitioned table performance
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:25:02 -0800
Message-ID: <200412151025.02262.josh@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <001f01c4e26c$99719680$0200a8c0@grownups>
References: <000a01c4da74$84e072e0$0200a8c0@grownups>
<200412102152.40442.josh@agliodbs.com>
<001f01c4e26c$99719680$0200a8c0@grownups>
Stacy,
> Thanks again for the reply. So it sounds like the answer to my original
> question is that it's expected that the pseudo-partitioning would introduce
> a fairly significant amount of overhead. Correct?
Correct. For that matter, Oracle table partitioning introduces significant
overhead, from what I've seen. I don't think there's a way not to.
Generally, I counsel people that they only want to consider
pseudo-partitioning if they have one axis on the table which is used in 90%
or more of the queries against that table.
What would improve the situation significantly, and the utility of
pseudo-partitioning, is the ability to have a single index span multiple
partitions. This would allow you to have a segmented index for the
partitioned axis, yet still use an unsegmented index for the other columns.
However, there's a *lot* of work to do to make that happen.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
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: josh@agliodbs.com, harsh@computer.org
Subject: Re: Partitioned table performance
In-Reply-To: <200412151025.02262.josh@agliodbs.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