Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions?

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 03:12, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think it'd be worthwhile to mention sub-partitioning.

In the attached I did briefly mention about sub-partitioning, however,
I didn't feel I had any very wise words to write about it other than
it can be useful to split up larger partitions.

I rather cheaply did the PG10 ones and just removed the mention about
PRIMARY KEYS and UNIQUE constraints. I also mention that PG11 is able
to handle "a few hundred partitions fairly well", and for PG10 I just
wrote that it's able to handle "a few hundred partitions" without the
"fairly well" part. master gets "a few thousand partitions fairly
well".

I also swapped out HASH for RANGE in the PG10 version which is not
quite perfect since its likely a customer ID would be a serial and
would fill the partitions one-by-one rather than more evenly as HASH
partitioning would.

Anyway comments welcome. If I had a few more minutes to spare I'd
have wrapped OLTP in <acronym> tags, but out of time for now.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services