On 2022-Oct-26, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2022-Oct-25, Finnerty, Jim wrote: > > > Or if you know the frequencies of the highly frequent values of the > > partitioning key at the time the partition bounds are defined, you > > could define hash ranges that contain approximately the same number of > > rows in each partition. A parallel sequential scan of all partitions > > would then perform better because data skew is minimized. > > This sounds very much like list partitioning to me.
... or maybe you mean "if the value is X then use this specific partition, otherwise use hash partitioning". It's a bit like multi-level partitioning, but not really. (You could test this idea by using two levels, list partitioning on top with a default partition which is in turn partitioned by hash; but this is unlikely to work well for large scale in practice. Or does it?) -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Entristecido, Wutra (canción de Las Barreras) echa a Freyr a rodar y a nosotros al mar"
