Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From John Papandriopoulos
Subject Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT
Date
Msg-id idfruc$aiq$1@news.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT  (Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On 12/4/10 3:19 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Partitioning using these techniques will work well with up to
>> perhaps a hundred partitions; don't try to use many thousands of
>> partitions.
>> regards, tom lane
> Hmmm, what happens if I need 10 years of data, in monthly partitions? It
> would be 120 partitions. Can you please elaborate on that limitation?
> Any plans on lifting that restriction?
>

Even with 1k partitions, I don't have any issues any of the SELECT, UPDATE or DELETE queries and with 8GB RAM.

I suppose if you're using INSERT triggers, you'd want to make sure your plpgsql function is fast: I'm partitioning by
power-of-two,so can use right-shift n-bits to quickly compute the insertion table name, rather than using an if-else-if
chain.

John

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: John Papandriopoulos
Date:
Subject: Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Query-plan for partitioned UPDATE/DELETE slow and swaps vmem compared to SELECT