On March 21, 2005 8:07 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On L, 2005-03-19 at 23:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, partitioning on the primary key would be Good Enough for 95% or
> > 99% of the real problems out there.  I'm not excited about adding a
> > large chunk of complexity to cover another few percent.
> Are you sure that partitioning on anything else than PK would be
> significantly harder ?
> I have a case where I do manual partitioning over start_time
> (timestamp), but the PK is an id from a sequence. They are almost, but
> not exactly in the same order. And I don't think that moving the PK to
> be (start_time, id) just because of "partitioning on PK only" would be a
> good design in any way.
> So please don't design the system to partition on PK only.

I agree. I have used table partitioning to implement pseudo-partitioning, and I 
am very pleased with the results so far. Real partitioning would be even 
better, but I am partitioning by timestamp, and this is not the PK, and I don't 
wish to make it one.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to