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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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 
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 © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group