Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions?
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKJS1f81ATvxMVmPgQ2AsCS2Oo4=20sE1apFSE4+RYHA2MMtoQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions? (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 06:54, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > >+ critical decision to make. Not having enough partitions may mean that > > > >+ indexes remain too large and that data locality remains poor which could > > > >+ result in poor cache hit ratios. However, dividing the table into too > > > >+ many partitions can also cause issues. Too many partitions can mean > > > >+ slower query planning times and higher memory consumption during both > > > >+ query planning and execution. It's also important to consider what > > > >+ changes may occur in the future when choosing how to partition your table. > > > >+ For example, if you choose to have one partition per customer and you > > > >+ currently have a small number of large customers, what will the > > > > > > have ONLY ? > > > > I assume you mean after the "have" before "one partition per > > customer"? > > No, I meant "currently have ONLY". I see, thanks for explaining. I've left that one out as I think adding "only" would imply that having a small number of large customers is less significant that a large number of small customers. I don't really see why either of those has significance over the other, so I think "only" is out of place there. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: