On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:46:59AM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 17:29, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > >+ > > >+ <sect2 id="ddl-partitioning-declarative-best-practices"> > > >+ <title>Declarative Partitioning Best Practices</title> > > >+ > > >+ <para> > > >+ The choice of how to partition a table should be considered carefully > > >as > > > > Either say "How to partition consider should be .." or "The choice should > > MADE carefully" ? > > I've changed "considered" to "made". I'm unable to make sense of the > first suggestion there :(
The first option was intended to be: |How to partition a table should be considered carefully. (The idea being that the "choice" doesn't need to be considered carefully but the thing itself). > > >+ critical decision to make. Not having enough partitions may mean that > > >+ indexes remain too large and that data locality remains poor which > > >could > > >+ result in poor cache hit ratios. However, dividing the table into too > > >+ many partitions can also cause issues. Too many partitions can mean > > >+ slower query planning times and higher memory consumption during both > > >+ query planning and execution. It's also important to consider what > > >+ changes may occur in the future when choosing how to partition your > > >table. > > >+ For example, if you choose to have one partition per customer and you > > >+ currently have a small number of large customers, what will the > > > > have ONLY ? > > I assume you mean after the "have" before "one partition per > customer"? No, I meant "currently have ONLY". > I don't quite understand that since in the scenario we're > partitioning by customer, so it's not possible to have more than one > partition per customer, only the reverse is possible. It seems to me > injecting "only" there would just confuse things. Thanks, Justin
