Paritioning vs. caching

From: Konrad Garus <konrad(dot)garus(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Paritioning vs. caching
Date: 2010-03-08 18:28:30
Message-ID: 6645f6441003081028v6dbca8f4s2a480114b86cb2a6@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hello,

I am evaluating a materialized view implemented as partitioned table.
At the moment the table is partitioned yearly and contains 5
numeric/timestamp columns. One of the columns is ID (but it's not what
the table is partitioned on).

Partition for one year occupies about 1200 MB. Each of the columns is
indexed, with each index weighing about 160 MB. I am trying to avoid
RAM/disk thrashing. Now I have the following questions:

1. When I query the table by ID, it performs index scan on each
partition. The result is only found in one partition, but I understand
why it needs to look in all of them. How much disk reading does it
involve? Is only the "head" of indexes for partitions that do not
include the row scanned, or are always whole indexes read? I would
like to know the general rule for index scans.

2. Is it possible to tell which PG objects are read from disk (because
they were not found in RAM)?

Thank you.

--
Konrad Garus

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anj Adu 2010-03-08 19:27:00 Re: Paritioning vs. caching
Previous Message Ben Chobot 2010-03-08 17:38:55 Re: Testing FusionIO