Partition table in 9.0.x?
От | AJ Weber |
---|---|
Тема | Partition table in 9.0.x? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50E74A33.5000204@comcast.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Simple join doesn't use index (Stefan Andreatta <s.andreatta@synedra.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Partition table in 9.0.x?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Hi all, I have a table that has about 73mm rows in it and growing. Running 9.0.x on a server that unfortunately is a little I/O constrained. Some (maybe) pertinent settings: default_statistics_target = 50 maintenance_work_mem = 512MB constraint_exclusion = on effective_cache_size = 5GB work_mem = 18MB wal_buffers = 8MB checkpoint_segments = 32 shared_buffers = 2GB The server has 12GB RAM, 4 cores, but is shared with a big webapp running in Tomcat -- and I only have a RAID1 disk to work on. Woes me... Anyway, this table is going to continue to grow, and it's used frequently (Read and Write). From what I read, this table is a candidate to be partitioned for performance and scalability. I have tested some scripts to build the "inherits" tables with their constraints and the trigger/function to perform the work. Am I doing the right thing by partitioning this? If so, and I can afford some downtime, is dumping the table via pg_dump and then loading it back in the best way to do this? Should I run a cluster or vacuum full after all is done? Is there a major benefit if I can upgrade to 9.2.x in some way that I haven't realized? Finally, if anyone has any comments about my settings listed above that might help improve performance, I thank you in advance. -AJ
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: