> On 12 Jan 2021, at 16:51, Голубева Яна <ish...@yandex.ru> wrote: > > Values for the key partitioning column are generated randomly and I can't > predict their distribution between ranges. > If I just create some ranges I won't have any guarantee that partitions will > have similar amount of data. It is possible that I will have 2 or 3 extremely > big partitions and a bit of data in others.
A hash of a random number is also random, so when using hashes for partitioning you will get the same problem. If you want to distribute values equally over a fixed number of partitions, I suggest you partition on a modulo of a monotonously increasing number (a sequence for example), instead of relying on a random number. > 12.01.2021, 17:55, "Michael Lewis" <mle...@entrata.com>: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:21 AM Голубева Яна <ish...@yandex.ru> wrote: > List or range partitioning isn't suitable for my case. > I am using a column of numeric(20) type as a base for partitioning. The > values of the column are generated randomly. > So there will be too many partitions if I use list partitioning as is. > > Sorry, but why is range not suited for this? It would seem fairly trivial to > create 50 or 1000 partitions to break up the range of values allowed by your > field definition. Alban Hertroys -- There is always an exception to always.
