On March 21, 2005 8:07 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote: > On L, 2005-03-19 at 23:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, partitioning on the primary key would be Good Enough for 95% or > > 99% of the real problems out there. I'm not excited about adding a > > large chunk of complexity to cover another few percent. > > Are you sure that partitioning on anything else than PK would be > significantly harder ? > > I have a case where I do manual partitioning over start_time > (timestamp), but the PK is an id from a sequence. They are almost, but > not exactly in the same order. And I don't think that moving the PK to > be (start_time, id) just because of "partitioning on PK only" would be a > good design in any way. > > So please don't design the system to partition on PK only.
I agree. I have used table partitioning to implement pseudo-partitioning, and I am very pleased with the results so far. Real partitioning would be even better, but I am partitioning by timestamp, and this is not the PK, and I don't wish to make it one. -Roger ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
