Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions
От
Leonardo F
Тема
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions
Дата
Msg-id
461294.47994.qm@web29015.mail.ird.yahoo.com
Ответ на
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions (Sergey Konoplev)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Partial indexes instead of partitions Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions David Wilson <david.t.wilson@gmail.com>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Leonardo F <m_lists@yahoo.it>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions David Wilson <david.t.wilson@gmail.com>
Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com>
> Could you please explain the reason to do so many > partitions? Because otherwise there would be tons of rows in each partition, and randomly "updating" the index for that many rows 2000 times per second isn't doable (the indexes get so big that it would be like writing a multi-GB file randomly) > In case b) you will face a huge overhead related to necessity > of > checking all the data in the table every time new index is > created I would create the table with all the indexes already in; but only the index related to the "current timestamp of the inserted row" would be updated; the others wouldn't be touched.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления