Re: table partioning performance

From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Colin Taylor" <colin(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: table partioning performance
Date: 2007-01-08 15:39:21
Message-ID: C1C7A5A9.17730%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Colin,

On 1/6/07 8:37 PM, "Colin Taylor" <colin(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi there, we've partioned a table (using 8.2) by day due to the 50TB of data
> (500k row size, 100G rows) we expect to store it in a year.
> Our performance on inserts and selects against the master table is
> disappointing, 10x slower (with ony 1 partition constraint) than we get by
> going to the partioned table directly. Browsing the list I get the impression
> this just a case of too many partitions? would be better off doing partitions
> of partitions ?

Can you post an "explain analyze" of your query here so we can see what's
going on?

- Luke

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-08 16:28:07 Re: [PATCHES] [Fwd: Index Advisor]
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-01-08 15:27:15 Re: BUG #2873: Function that returns an empty set with a 'not null' domain errors in 8.2 but not 8.1

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-08 18:09:16 Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2007-01-08 09:18:19 Re: tweaking under repeatable load