On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:17 AM Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi!
I was reading up on declarative partitioning[1] and I'm not sure what could be a possible application of Hash partitioning.Is anyone actually using it? What are typical use cases? What benefits does such a partitioning scheme provide?On its face, it seems that it can only give you a number of tables which are smaller than the un-partitioned one, but I fail to see how it would provide any of the potential advantages listed in the documentation.
I'm sure there will be many delightful answers to your question, and I look forward to them! From my point of view, hash partitioning is very useful for spreading out high insert/update load. Yes its' true you end up with more smaller tables than one big large one, but remember the indexes are (often) tree data structures. Smaller trees are faster than bigger trees. By making the indexes smaller they are faster. Since the planner can knows to only examine the specific index it needs, this ends up being a lot faster.
Postgres can also parallelize queries on partitions. This is different from a parallel sequential scan, which can also happen per-partition, so there are multiple levels of parallel opportunity.
And last that I can think of, you can put the different partitions in different tablespaces, improving the total IO bandwidth.
-Michel
With a reasonable hash function, the distribution of rows across partitions should be more or less equal, so I wouldn't expect any of the following to hold true:- "...most of the heavily accessed rows of the table are in a single partition or a small number of partitions."- "Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing partitions...",etc.That *might* turn out to be the case with a small number of distinct values in the partitioning column(s), but then why rely on hash assignment instead of using PARTITION BY LIST in the first place?
