On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 12:59 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > Well, it's not so much that I care about queries with 1000+ relations, > > as that this is a good way to stress-test the code and find out where > > the performance issues are. There are many thousand lines of code that > > can never be performance-sensitive, but to expose the ones that are > > it helps to push the envelope a bit. > > Once we have partitioning and people set up automated scripts to > partition off stuff, we may well end up with 1000+ table queries...
I can see why you think that, but there will always be pressure to reduce the number of partitions for a variety of reasons. IMHO that will lead to an optimum range of values. To me, it seems likely there would be a recommendation along the lines of: divide the table up naturally in a way that gives between 10 and 500 partitions that are mostly roughly equally sized. Using more than that could lead to some fairly strange designs. Anyway, lets wait and see. Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
