Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions?
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
From: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-06-06T19:36:03Z
Lists: 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
Commits
-
doc: Fix grammatical error in partitioning docs
- 1bbcbfaf7824 10.9 landed
- e23338cec4fb 11.4 landed
- ddc053dc503a 12.0 landed
-
doc: Add best practises section to partitioning docs
- 6e1dc84533e4 10.9 landed
- 936b5e589e04 11.4 landed
- e788e849addd 12.0 landed