Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT

From: Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: John Papandriopoulos <dr(dot)jpap(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT
Date: 2010-12-04 23:19:29
Message-ID: 4CFACC81.3050901@vmsinfo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom Lane wrote:
> Partitioning using these techniques will work well with up to
> perhaps a hundred partitions; don't try to use many thousands of
> partitions.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Hmmm, what happens if I need 10 years of data, in monthly partitions? It
would be 120 partitions. Can you please elaborate on that limitation?
Any plans on lifting that restriction?

--
Mladen Gogala
Sr. Oracle DBA
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 329-5251
www.vmsinfo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jochen Erwied 2010-12-04 23:38:39 Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-04 22:40:00 Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT