Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 14172.1111359709@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? ("Stacy White" <harsh@computer.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning?
Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
"Stacy White" <harsh@computer.org> writes:
> FWIW, we see large benefits from partitioning other than the ability to
> easily drop data, for example:
> - We can vacuum only the active portions of a table
> - Postgres automatically keeps related records clustered together on disk,
> which makes it more likely that the blocks used by common queries can be
> found in cache
> - The query engine uses full table scans on the relevant sections of data,
> and quickly skips over the irrelevant sections
> - 'CLUSTER'ing a single partition is likely to be significantly more
> performant than clustering a large table
Global indexes would seriously reduce the performance of both vacuum and
cluster for a single partition, and if you want seq scans you don't need
an index for that at all. So the above doesn't strike me as a strong
argument for global indexes ...
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: