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

Re: Very Large Table Partitioning

From: Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Majid Azimi <majid(dot)merkava(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL - Novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Very Large Table Partitioning
Date: 2010-12-17 22:26:28
Message-ID: 4D0BE394.80609@vmsinfo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
Tom Lane wrote:
> Majid Azimi <majid(dot)merkava(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>   
>> if we decide to partition table per user we have lots of tables (maybe 
>> more than 100000+) with only 10000 records each.
>> is this a good idea? is there any limit for number of tables?
>>     
>
> No, it's a fantastically bad idea.  Please note the caveats in the
> partitioning documentation --- the facility is not meant for more than
> order-of-a-hundred partitions.  Even if Postgres didn't have issues with
> it, your filesystem might get ill with hundreds of thousands of files in
> one directory.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
>   
Tom, at one time you mentioned "getting the proper partitioning". Any 
inklings on what was meant by that and if there was any progress on that?

-- 
 
Mladen Gogala 
Sr. Oracle DBA
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 329-5251
http://www.vmsinfo.com 
The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions




In response to

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: markDate: 2010-12-18 02:10:00
Subject: Re: Very Large Table Partitioning
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-12-17 19:38:49
Subject: Re: Very Large Table Partitioning

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