Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: david(at)lang(dot)hm, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, henk de wit <henk53602(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Date: 2009-05-09 01:25:38
Message-ID: 4A04DB92.1060405@postnewspapers.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Robert Haas wrote:

> Well, even if the table is not partitioned at all, I don't see that it
> should preclude parallel query access.  If I've got a 1 GB table that
> needs to be sequentially scanned for rows meeting some restriction
> clause, and I have two CPUs and plenty of I/O bandwidth, ISTM it
> should be possible to have them each scan half of the table and
> combine the results.  Now, this is not easy and there are probably
> substantial planner and executor changes required to make it work, but
> I don't know that it would be particularly easier if I had two 500 MB
> partitions instead of a single 1 GB table.

The point of partitioning in this scenario is primarily that you can put
the different partitions in different tablespaces, most likely on
independent disk devices. You therefore get more I/O bandwidth.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-05-09 02:00:48
Subject: Re: Bad Plan for Questionnaire-Type Query
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-05-09 00:17:34
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL with PostGIS on embedded hardware

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group