Yeah that would be a pain to have the date_part in each query. Thanks for the info!
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:48:10 -0700
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Postgres partitions-query scanning all child tables
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:48:10 -0700
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Postgres partitions-query scanning all child tables
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:10 AM, rverghese <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ok, thanks. Thats a bummer though. That means I need a table for every month/year combination. I was hoping to limit it to 12 tables.Riya
If you wanted to have a column called month_num or something like that, and if *all* of your queries extract the month date_part() in every where clause, then yes, you could have just 12 tables.
But you won't like that partitioning scheme for other reasons:
- queries that don't "play by the rules" will be slow
- very old data will slow down recent-day queries
- no ability to quickly remove obsolete data by dropping partitions that are no longer useful
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/Postgres-partitions-query-scanning-all-child-tables-tp5884497p5884581.html
View this message in context: RE: Postgres partitions-query scanning all child tables
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
