>I wondered if you compared to PG10 or to inheritence-partitioning (parent with >relkind='r' and either trigger or rule or >INSERT/UPDATE directly into child) ?
Thank you for your reply. I compared to PG11beta2 with non-partitioned table. Non-partitioned table has 1100 records in one table. Partitioned table has one record on each leaf partitions. Regards, -----Original Message----- From: Justin Pryzby [mailto:pry...@telsasoft.com] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:11 PM To: Kato, Sho/加藤 翔 <kato-...@jp.fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: How to make partitioning scale better for larger numbers of partitions Hi, On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 02:58:53AM +0000, Kato, Sho wrote: > I benchmarked on a RANGE partitioned table with 1.1k leaf partitions and no > sub-partitioned tables. > But, statement latencies on a partitioned table is much slower than on a > non-partitioned table. > > UPDATE latency is 210 times slower than a non-partitioned table. > SELECT latency is 36 times slower than a non-partitioned table. > Surprisingly INSERT latency is almost same. I wondered if you compared to PG10 or to inheritence-partitioning (parent with relkind='r' and either trigger or rule or INSERT/UPDATE directly into child) ? Justin
