Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD02632997 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 89800-09 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:51:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx.ttitech.net (mx.ttitech.net [65.202.253.91]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709596327F0 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [172.30.249.253] (tti88 [65.202.253.88]) by mx.ttitech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EFA0683F6 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C23B739.6070704@ttitech.net> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:51:21 -0400 From: Joshua Gooding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: question about partitioning References: <4C235807.5070509@ttitech.net> <4C23B28C.2080006@ttitech.net> <8585BA53443004458E0BAA6134C5A7FB07BA649C@EGEXCMB01.oww.root.lcl> In-Reply-To: <8585BA53443004458E0BAA6134C5A7FB07BA649C@EGEXCMB01.oww.root.lcl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.011 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_40=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201006/81 X-Sequence-Number: 34272 I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the date parameters though. I don't have to worry at all about partition size. Joshua Gooding On 6/24/2010 3:37 PM, Little, Douglas wrote: > I don't know how you would partition by size. > Date is a good candidate, and roughly wouldn't you have the same number of tx's/day > You'll only benefit query performance if you include the partitioning column in the where clause. > If you have a surrogate pk, you could also use this to partition. Using a range key you would probably get relatively constant partition size. > > Doug > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Gooding > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:31 PM > To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [SQL] question about partitioning > > I think I replied to the individual and not to the list before.... > > As of right now size doesn't matter, I need to partition it via a date. > 10 partitions, 10 weeks worth of data. > > I was thinking of partitioning it off every 32GB of data, but that is > not exactly what I am looking to do. > > Joshua Gooding > > > On 6/24/2010 11:06 AM, Jasen Betts wrote: > >> On 2010-06-24, Joshua Gooding wrote: >> >> >>> Right now I am in the process of migrating an Oracle DB over to Postgres >>> 8.4.3. The table is partitioned by size. Is there anyway to partition >>> the new postgres table by size? I created some partitions for the new >>> table, but I didn't give postgres any rules to partition by, so I have >>> 250M test records in one table. Any ideas or thoughts on how to build >>> the rules for the table by size would be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> >> by size of what? >> >> >> >