On March 21, 2005 8:07 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On L, 2005-03-19 at 23:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, partitioning on the primary key would be Good Enough for 95% or
> > 99% of the real problems out there. I'm not excited about adding a
> > large chunk of complexity to cover another few percent.
> Are you sure that partitioning on anything else than PK would be
> significantly harder ?
> I have a case where I do manual partitioning over start_time
> (timestamp), but the PK is an id from a sequence. They are almost, but
> not exactly in the same order. And I don't think that moving the PK to
> be (start_time, id) just because of "partitioning on PK only" would be a
> good design in any way.
> So please don't design the system to partition on PK only.
I agree. I have used table partitioning to implement pseudo-partitioning, and I am very pleased with the results so far. Real partitioning would be even better, but I am partitioning by timestamp, and this is not the PK, and I don't wish to make it one.
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Matthew Nuzum||Date: 2005-04-26 20:16:57|
|Subject: speed up query with max() and odd estimates|
|Previous:||From: Steve Poe||Date: 2005-04-26 17:49:46|
|Subject: Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2|