Re: Partitioned table performance
От | Stacy White |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Partitioned table performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 006901c4e7c7$62118500$0200a8c0@grownups обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Partitioned table performance ("Stacy White" <harsh@computer.org>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
The discussion seems to have diverged a little, so I don't feel too bad about making some semi-off-topic comments. From: "Greg Stark" <gsstark@mit.edu> > Like I said though, we found "global indexes" defeated the whole purpose. First semi-off-topic comment: I think this depends on the index, the data, and the goal of the partitioning. We use partitioning on one of our Oracle projects for performance rather than managability. In this case, a global index on a non-partitioned field can be helpful. Imagine an 'orders' table with 100 partitions on week. Products have a short life cycle, and are typically around for only a week or two. A query like 'SELECT * FROM orders WHERE product_no = ?' forces a lookup on 100 different local indexes, but only one global index. Second-semi-off-topic comment: Josh mentioned that Oracle's partitioning introduces it's own overhead, so I re-ran my earlier benchmarks on one of our Oracle machines. I believe Oracle's licensing agreement prohibits me from posting any benchmarks, so all I'll say is that Postgres' inheritance partitioning implementation is _very_ low overhead, and even union views are competitive.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: