Re: Hash partitioning.

On 26.06.2013 11:17, Yuri Levinsky wrote:
> The main purpose of partitioning in my world
> is to store billions of rows and be able to search by date, hour or even
> minute as fast as possible.

Hash partitioning sounds like a bad fit for that use case. A regular 
b-tree, possibly with range partitioning, sounds optimal for that.

> When you dealing with company, which has
> ~350.000.000 users, and you don't want to use key/value data stores: you
> need hash partitioned tables and hash partitioned table clusters to
> perform fast search and 4-6 tables join based on user phone number for
> example.

B-trees are surprisingly fast for key-value lookups. There is no reason 
to believe that a hash partitioned table would be faster for that than a 
plain table.

- Heikki