Message-ID: <4E85F8C1.3040900@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:13:37 -0300
From: alexandre - aldeia digital <adaldeia@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: the number of child tables --table partitioning
References: 
 <DA4F4F897807834DBADB546A8F635997C6B4@CH1PRD0502MB099.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<4E8443B502000025000418DE@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<CAM6mieL6RFhhmFyhmMOGZew0O3NavBY4XnMsxQmVV+kxGFj=5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHyXU0zy0A8Wwk5CYpr9-FXjKQhZ7Zq29TqO+cQWRvk-dwgFzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHyXU0zy0A8Wwk5CYpr9-FXjKQhZ7Zq29TqO+cQWRvk-dwgFzw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Em 30-09-2011 14:01, Merlin Moncure escreveu:
> 2011/9/29 Ondrej Ivanič<ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 30 September 2011 01:08, Kevin Grittner<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>  wrote:
>>>> Is there a suggested number of child tables for table
>>>> partitioning,
>>> Generally, don't go over about 100 partitions per table.
>> Having 365 partitions per table is fine...
> yeah -- the system was certainly designed to support 'dozens to
> hundreds', but 'hundreds of thousands' is simply not realistic.  any
> measurable benefit gained from partitioning is going to be var
> exceeded by the database having to track so many tables.
>
> btw, partitioning for purposes of performance is a dubious strategy
> unless you can leverage non-uniform access patterns of the data or do
> other tricks that allow simplification of structures (like removing
> 'company_id' from all tables and indexes because it's implied by the
> partition itself).
>
> merlin
>

Can we see the transparent table partitioningimplemented in Postgres 9.2 
version before the end of the world in 2012? ;)
Today, it is very difficult to maintain table partitioning schemes even 
with small number of partitions.

Anyway, congrats for the superb 9.1 version!