: [GENERAL] Decreasing performance in table partitioning
Thank you. Sorry I have been away for a few days and couldn't thank you before.
Wouldn't this have an impact if there are things like views or functions based
on the old table?
On 08/09/2014, at 04:57, Huang, Suya wrote:
Instead o
Thank you. I was away for a few days.
This is PG version 9.1. Now, this is in a function. As far as I understand,
every function is a single transaction. I have not created exception blocks
because I don't have any special handling for exceptions. I'm fine with the
default.
The data in each t
Thank you. Sorry I have been away for a few days and couldn't thank you before.
Wouldn't this have an impact if there are things like views or functions based
on the old table?
On 08/09/2014, at 04:57, Huang, Suya wrote:
> Instead of deleting from the original non-partition table which is not
Instead of deleting from the original non-partition table which is not
efficient, you can try below approach.
Put below logic in a function as you like:
Create a new partition table.
Insert data from original non-partition table to the correct partition of new
partition table.
Build index and a
Herouth Maoz writes:
> My problem is the main loop, in which data for one month is moved from the
> old table to the partition table.
> EXECUTE FORMAT (
> 'WITH del AS (
> DELETE FROM %1$I.%2$I
> WHERE %3$I >= %4$L AND %3$I <
