Re: Partitioning into thousands of tables?

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:10:30PM +1000, Data Growth Pty Ltd wrote:
> Is there any significant performance problem associated with partitioning
> a table into 2500 sub-tables? I realise a table scan would be horrendous,
> but what if all accesses specified the partitioning criteria "sid". Such
> a scheme would be the simplest to maintain (I think) with the best
> localisation of writes.

I seem to remember some discussion on pgsql-hackers recently about the number
of partitions and its effect on performance, especially planning time.
Unfortunately I can't find it right now, but in general the conclusion was
it's bad to have lots of partitions, where "lots" is probably 100 or more.

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com