Greetings, Lance,
* Campbell, Lance (lance@illinois.edu) wrote:
> My group is planning on moving our PostgreSQL install to AWS. We plan to use their RDS option for running
PostgreSQL. When we make this move is there any reason to use Partitioned Tables on really large tables? Will we get
anyperformance gain?
This really depends on what you're doing, exactly. Generally speaking,
I find that partitioning is great for data management (you're able to
get rid of an entire partition at a time, based on your retention
policy, for example) and it isn't what you look to for improving
individual query performance. Having smaller tables can make things a
bit easier for autovacuum, but 9.6 also has improvements that can make
VACUUMs much less painful (the all-frozen visability bit in the VM).
> I know we would get a performance gain on really large tables if we partitioned them and put their partitions in
differenttable spaces that use different disks. However since we are looking at using the more generalized hands off
automatedAWS RDS PostgreSQL option I don't see us using table spaces and different disks. So would there be any gain
inpartitioning tables in the more automated AWS RDS PostgreSQL path?
This really depends on what your queries are doing. It's not
necessairly a guarantee that a given query will perform better if the
table is split up into partitions and spread across tablespaces.
In short, there isn't a simple answer to that question.
Thanks!
Stephen