Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:10:30PM +1000, Data Growth Pty Ltd wrote: >> Is there any significant performance problem associated with partitioning >> a table into 2500 sub-tables? I realise a table scan would be horrendous, >> but what if all accesses specified the partitioning criteria "sid". Such >> a scheme would be the simplest to maintain (I think) with the best >> localisation of writes. > I seem to remember some discussion on pgsql-hackers recently about the number > of partitions and its effect on performance, especially planning time. > Unfortunately I can't find it right now, but in general the conclusion was > it's bad to have lots of partitions, where "lots" is probably 100 or more. It's in the fine manual: see last para of http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-CAVEATS regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
