Robert Haas wrote: > Well, even if the table is not partitioned at all, I don't see that it > should preclude parallel query access. If I've got a 1 GB table that > needs to be sequentially scanned for rows meeting some restriction > clause, and I have two CPUs and plenty of I/O bandwidth, ISTM it > should be possible to have them each scan half of the table and > combine the results. Now, this is not easy and there are probably > substantial planner and executor changes required to make it work, but > I don't know that it would be particularly easier if I had two 500 MB > partitions instead of a single 1 GB table.
The point of partitioning in this scenario is primarily that you can put the different partitions in different tablespaces, most likely on independent disk devices. You therefore get more I/O bandwidth. -- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
