From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:57:52 -0700
Message-ID: <4CA67580.7070003@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1548.1285977377@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4CA672D7.3070405@agliodbs.com>
<1548.1285977377@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> [ shrug ... ] We do not promise that the current partitioning scheme
> scales to the number of partitions where this is likely to be an
> interesting concern.
Actually, you can demonstrate pretty significant response time delays on
only 50 partitions.
> We're talking "wasted effort on a dead-end situation". The time that
> would go into this would be much better spent on real partitioning.
That only applies if someone is working on "real partitioning". Is anyone?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
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, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants
In-Reply-To: <4CA67580.7070003@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