Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> That's a fair point, and reinforces my instinct that having a large
> number of partitions would be a losing game. But you are mistaken to
> think that the number of hot-spot tables is the only limit on the number
> of usable partitions. It's the number of their indexes that matters most.
Hm, so hypothetically an insert or update on a table with 4 indexes which have
been split into 4 partitions would need to touch each partition?
Would that defeat the benefits of the partitioning? Or enhance it?
Would it be better to ensure that the indexes of a single table ended up in
the same partition? Or to ensure they're spread across partitions?
--
greg