Because people can be smarter about the data partitioning. Consider a table of users. Some are active, most are not. The active users account for nearly all of the users table access, but I still (occasionally) want to access info about the inactive users. Partitioning users into active_users and inactive_users allows me to tell the database (indirectly) that the active users index should stay in memory, while the inactive users can relegated to disk. -Nathan On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Gurjeet Singh wrote: > > > One of the advantages > > of breaking up your data into partitions, as professed by Simon (I think) > > (and I agree), is that you have smaller indexes, which improve > performance. > > And maybe having one huge index managing the uniqueness across partitioned > > data just defeats the idea of data partitioning! > > > > Isn't "large indexes are a performance problem" just saying > "we don't implement indexes very well"? And why are they > a problem - surely a tree-structured index is giving you > range-partitioned subsets as you traverse it? Why is this > different from manual partitioning into (inherited) tables? > > Thanks, > Jeremy > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
