On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 at 19:04, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 12:16 PM James Addison wrote:
>>
>> In the context of considering writing a patch: would the complexity of
>> implementing such a feature for PostgreSQL be worth the potential
>> performance benefits?
>
> Probably
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 at 07:29, bruno vieira da silva
wrote:
> On pg 17 now we have better visibility on the I/O required during query
> planning.
> so, as part of an ongoing design work for table partitioning I was analyzing
> the performance implications of having more or less partitions.
> In o
correction: Is there a way to have *visibility* on its usage?
thanks
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 1:29 PM bruno vieira da silva
wrote:
> Hello All.
>
> On pg 17 now we have better visibility on the I/O required during query
> planning.
> so, as part of an ongoing design work for table partitioning I
Hello All.
On pg 17 now we have better visibility on the I/O required during query
planning.
so, as part of an ongoing design work for table partitioning I was
analyzing the performance implications of having more or less partitions.
In one of my tests of a table with 200 partitions using explain
