RE: How to make partitioning scale better for larger numbers of partitions

>I wondered if you compared to PG10 or to inheritence-partitioning (parent with relkind='r' and either trigger or rule or >INSERT/UPDATE directly into child) ?

Thank you for your reply.

I compared to PG11beta2 with non-partitioned table.

Non-partitioned table has 1100 records in one table.
Partitioned table has one record on each leaf partitions.

Regards,
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Pryzby [mailto:pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:11 PM
To: Kato, Sho/加藤 翔 <kato-sho(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: How to make partitioning scale better for larger numbers of partitions

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 02:58:53AM +0000, Kato, Sho wrote:
> I benchmarked on a RANGE partitioned table with 1.1k leaf partitions and no sub-partitioned tables.
> But, statement latencies on a partitioned table is much slower than on a non-partitioned table.
>
> UPDATE latency is 210 times slower than a non-partitioned table.
> SELECT latency is 36 times slower than a non-partitioned table.
> Surprisingly INSERT latency is almost same.

I wondered if you compared to PG10 or to inheritence-partitioning (parent with relkind='r' and either trigger or rule or INSERT/UPDATE directly into child) ?

Justin