Re: Hash partitioning.

From: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: Yuri Levinsky <yuril(at)celltick(dot)com>
Cc: ktm(at)rice(dot)edu, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash partitioning.
Date: 2013-06-26 14:47:09
Message-ID: 51CAFEED.5060606@bluegap.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 06/26/2013 04:10 PM, Yuri Levinsky wrote:
> You typically don't want to use b-tree index when yo select
> more when ~1-2% of your data.

Agreed. Indices on columns with very low selectivity don't perform well.
(Postgres knows that and uses a sequential scan based on selectivity
estimates. Being able to eliminate entire partitions from such a seq
scan would certainly be beneficial, yes.)

In the Postgres world, though, I think CLUSTERing might be the better
approach to solve that problem. (Note: this has nothing to do with
distributed systems in this case.) I'm not sure what the current status
of auto clustering or optimized scans on such a permanently clustered
table is, though.

The minmax indices proposed for 9.4 might be another feature worth
looking at.

Both of these approaches may eventually provide a more general and more
automatic way to speed up scans on large portions of a relation, IMO.

Regards

Markus Wanner

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-06-26 14:52:01 Re: Bugfix and new feature for PGXS
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2013-06-26 14:40:09 Re: LATERAL quals revisited