On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 03:12, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I think it'd be worthwhile to mention sub-partitioning.
In the attached I did briefly mention about sub-partitioning, however, I didn't feel I had any very wise words to write about it other than it can be useful to split up larger partitions. I rather cheaply did the PG10 ones and just removed the mention about PRIMARY KEYS and UNIQUE constraints. I also mention that PG11 is able to handle "a few hundred partitions fairly well", and for PG10 I just wrote that it's able to handle "a few hundred partitions" without the "fairly well" part. master gets "a few thousand partitions fairly well". I also swapped out HASH for RANGE in the PG10 version which is not quite perfect since its likely a customer ID would be a serial and would fill the partitions one-by-one rather than more evenly as HASH partitioning would. Anyway comments welcome. If I had a few more minutes to spare I'd have wrapped OLTP in <acronym> tags, but out of time for now. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
part_doc_master.patch
Description: Binary data
part_doc_pg11.patch
Description: Binary data
part_doc_pg10.patch
Description: Binary data
