2018-01-09 18:15 GMT+01:00 Andrew Staller <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
This is the blog post that Rakesh referenced:
https://blog.timescale.com/time-series-data-postgresql- 10-vs-timescaledb-816ee808bac5 Please note, this analysis is done in the context of working with time-series data, where 1000s of chunks is not uncommon because of the append-mostly nature of the workload.On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
You should have read carefully what I wrote. 1000 is not an upper limit. 1000 partition is the number after which performance starts dropping .
There is a blog in www.timescale.com which also highlights the same.
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 at 6:20 PM
From: "Kumar, Virendra" <Virendra.Kumar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "pgsql-general@postgresql.org " <pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: How Many Partitions are Good Performing
Can somebody tell us how many partitions are good number without impacting the performance. We are hearing around a thousand, is that a limit. Do we have plan to increase the number of partitions for a table. We would appreciate if somebody can help us with this?
Regards,
Virendra
------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain
information that is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message
and its attachments and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
--TimescaleDB | Growth & Developer Evangelismc: 908.581.9509
The data about the query performances would have shed more light on the situation.
Unluckily there's none. Weird!
--
Vincenzo Romano - NotOrAnd.IT
Information Technologies
--
NON QVIETIS MARIBVS NAVTA PERITVS
Information Technologies
--
NON QVIETIS MARIBVS NAVTA PERITVS
