Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, David Wilson <david.t.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it> wrote:
>>
>> > For "inserts" I do not see the reason
>> > why
>> > it would be better to use index partitioning because AFAIK
>> > b-tree
>> > would behave exactly the same in both cases.
>>
>> no, when the index gets very big inserting random values gets
>> very slow.
>
> Do you have any empirical evidence for this being a real problem, or are you
> simply guessing? I have tables with 500m+ rows, on commodity hardware (4
> SATA disks in raid 10), and inserts to the indexes on those tables remain
> quite acceptable from a performance standpoint.
>

Can you define acceptable?  IIRC the OP is looking for 20,000+ inserts / sec.


--
Peter Hunsberger