From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Edson Richter <edsonrichter(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Partitioning docs (was Re: Range partitioning and overlap) |
Date: | 2020-11-14 18:11:29 |
Message-ID: | 469467.1605377489@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-general |
I wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I am curious as to your thoughts on unique indexes and whether/how to
>> better incorporate advice regarding the use of ON CONFLICT with
>> partitioning [1] vis-a-vis the overview's claim of:
>> "The partitioning substitutes for leading columns of indexes, reducing
>> index size and making it more likely that the heavily-used parts of the
>> indexes fit in memory" [2]
> Possibly a better way to write that claim is that partitioning can
> substitute for the upper levels of a huge index, rather than "leading
> columns" per se. That way of looking at it is still sensible when
> a partition covers more than one value of the key column.
I changed it like that and pushed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-11-15 03:39:09 | Re: 42.6.8 trapping errors |
Previous Message | PG Doc comments form | 2020-11-14 07:33:29 | 42.6.8 trapping errors |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Job | 2020-11-14 19:29:33 | Bi-directional Replica updates |
Previous Message | Dirk Mika | 2020-11-14 14:22:38 | Re: PostgreSQL equivalent to Oracles ANYDATASET |