Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's a fair point, and reinforces my instinct that having a large > number of partitions would be a losing game. But you are mistaken to > think that the number of hot-spot tables is the only limit on the number > of usable partitions. It's the number of their indexes that matters most.
Hm, so hypothetically an insert or update on a table with 4 indexes which have been split into 4 partitions would need to touch each partition? Would that defeat the benefits of the partitioning? Or enhance it? Would it be better to ensure that the indexes of a single table ended up in the same partition? Or to ensure they're spread across partitions? -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
