Message-ID: <426E640A.9060409@pse-consulting.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:53:46 +0000
From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apoc9009@yahoo.de
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?
References: <426DF6C5.1090509@yahoo.de> <426DFA43.5080801@archonet.com>
	<426E108D.7000503@yahoo.de>
In-Reply-To: <426E108D.7000503@yahoo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

apoc9009@yahoo.de wrote:
> Hmm,
> 
> I have asked some Peoples on the List an some one has posted this links
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-12/msg00101.php
> 
> It is quite usefull to read but iam not sure thadt theese Trick is verry 
> helpfull.
> 
> I want to splitt my 1GByte Table into some little Partitions but how 
> should i do thadt?
> With the ORACLE Partitioning Option, i can Configurering my Table withe 
> Enterprise
> Manager or SQL Plus but in this case it looks like Trap.
> 
> Should i really decrease my Tabledata size  and spread them to other 
> Tables with the
> same Structure by limiting Records???
> 
> The next Problem i see, how should i do a Insert/Update/Delete on 4 
> Tables of the
> same Structure at one Query???
> 
> No missunderstanding. We talking not about normalization or 
> restructuring the Colums
> of a table. We talking about Partitioning and in this case at Postgres 
> (emultation
> of Partitioning wir UNIONS for Performance tuning)..

 From your description I don't see evidence that you should need to 
partition your table at all. A 1GB table is very common for pgsql. Spend 
some hard disks on your storage subsystem and you'll gain the 
performance you want, without trouble on the SQL side. For specific 
requirements, you might see improvements from partial indexes.

Regards,
Andreas