On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 06:54, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > >+ critical decision to make. Not having enough partitions may mean > > > >that > > > >+ indexes remain too large and that data locality remains poor which > > > >could > > > >+ result in poor cache hit ratios. However, dividing the table into > > > >too > > > >+ many partitions can also cause issues. Too many partitions can mean > > > >+ slower query planning times and higher memory consumption during > > > >both > > > >+ query planning and execution. It's also important to consider what > > > >+ changes may occur in the future when choosing how to partition your > > > >table. > > > >+ For example, if you choose to have one partition per customer and > > > >you > > > >+ currently have a small number of large customers, what will the > > > > > > have ONLY ? > > > > I assume you mean after the "have" before "one partition per > > customer"? > > No, I meant "currently have ONLY".
I see, thanks for explaining. I've left that one out as I think adding "only" would imply that having a small number of large customers is less significant that a large number of small customers. I don't really see why either of those has significance over the other, so I think "only" is out of place there. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
