On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 15:59, Michael Lewis <mle...@entrata.com> wrote:
> You can not have overlapping partitions that are both attached. > Not directly, no. That's why I'm considering the _partition_channel hack. Why do you want to merge partitions that you are "done with" instead of > just leaving them partitioned by day? > I have some random access index lookups on columns not in the partition key, where values are unique over the entire table so at most one partition is going to return a row. A lookup that touches 4 or 5 pages in each of 100 partition indexes is more expensive than one that touches 6 or 7 pages in each of 10 larger partition indexes. Why are you partitioning at all? Are you confident that you need partitions > for performance & that the trade-offs are worth the cost, or are you > needing to detach/drop old data quickly to adhere to a retention policy? > I do want cheap drops of old data, but also many queries have indexable conditions on non-key columns and also only want records from the most recent N days, so partition pruning is useful there with small partitions for recent records.
