From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:16:21 -0400
Message-ID: <6813.1285978581@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CA67580.7070003@agliodbs.com>
References: <4CA672D7.3070405@agliodbs.com>
<1548.1285977377@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4CA67580.7070003@agliodbs.com>
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> [ 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.
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.
>> 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?
There is discussion going on, and even if there weren't, the argument
still applies. Time spent on this band-aid would be time taken away
from a real solution. In case you haven't noticed, we have very finite
amounts of manpower that's competent to do planner surgery.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants
In-Reply-To: <6813.1285978581@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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