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: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:34:03 -0700
Message-ID: <4CAA1E1B.8080505@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6813.1285978581@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4CA672D7.3070405@agliodbs.com>
<1548.1285977377@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4CA67580.7070003@agliodbs.com>
<6813.1285978581@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> 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? 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.
The main reason for partitioning is ease of maintenance (VACUUM,
dropping partitions, etc.) not any kind of I/O optimization.
I'd like to add the following statement to our docs on partitioning, in
section 5.9.4:
=====
Constraint exclusion is tested for every CHECK constraint on the
partitions, even CHECK constraints which have nothing to do with the
partitioning scheme. This can add siginficant extra planner time,
especially if your partitions have CHECK constraints which are costly to
evaluate. For performance, it can be a good idea to eliminate all extra
CHECK constraints on partitions or to re-implement them as triggers.
=====
>In case you haven't noticed, we have very finite
> amounts of manpower that's competent to do planner surgery.
Point.
--
-- 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: <4CAA1E1B.8080505@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