Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22ABC9FA339 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:37:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46151-10 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:37:11 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC079F9FB2 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:37:09 -0400 (AST) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id x4so9011394nfb for ; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:37:08 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=m6tQysVaPd+C8t/gbJVdVnKSLNd0Q05fjku9oxtgkEY1n7iWFAPmCFb8lrrXQL7Z0KbUKf/6bC9C7/4B1tmFma+GVewFmVIDj5JHw0/R2WptkWG1X3+R3vSCoZqpPbtbmfVeHmy3HuCrXRk58ok3dkKSb7OkZgsY2CkyRycJtzM= Received: by 10.78.201.15 with SMTP id y15mr5104798huf.1168144628689; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.201.20 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 20:37:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <84d3067d0701062037k3229c9ddjbde73b1fd79ee209@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:37:08 +1300 From: "Colin Taylor" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: table partioning performance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_42395_1448065.1168144628665" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.055 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_20, HTML_00_10, HTML_MESSAGE, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200701/82 X-Sequence-Number: 22683 ------=_Part_42395_1448065.1168144628665 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi there, we've partioned a table (using 8.2) by day due to the 50TB of data (500k row size, 100G rows) we expect to store it in a year. Our performance on inserts and selects against the master table is disappointing, 10x slower (with ony 1 partition constraint) than we get by going to the partioned table directly. Browsing the list I get the impression this just a case of too many partitions? would be better off doing partitions of partitions ? Any other advice or pointers to more information with dealing with these sorts of scales appreciated. thanks Colin. ------=_Part_42395_1448065.1168144628665 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi there,  we've partioned a table (using 8.2) by day due to the 50TB of data (500k row size, 100G rows) we expect to store it in a year.
Our performance on inserts and selects against the master table is disappointing, 10x slower (with ony 1 partition constraint) than we get  by going to the partioned table directly. Browsing the list I get the impression this just a case of too many partitions?  would be better off doing partitions of partitions ?

Any other advice  or pointers to more information with dealing with these sorts of scales appreciated.

thanks
Colin.
------=_Part_42395_1448065.1168144628665--