| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yuri Levinsky <yuril(at)celltick(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash partitioning. |
| Date: | 2013-06-26 14:25:45 |
| Message-ID: | 6240.1372256745@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On 26.06.2013 11:17, Yuri Levinsky wrote:
>> When you dealing with company, which has
>> ~350.000.000 users, and you don't want to use key/value data stores: you
>> need hash partitioned tables and hash partitioned table clusters to
>> perform fast search and 4-6 tables join based on user phone number for
>> example.
> B-trees are surprisingly fast for key-value lookups. There is no reason
> to believe that a hash partitioned table would be faster for that than a
> plain table.
Or in short: the quoted advice may very well be true for Oracle, but
applying it blindly to Postgres is not a good idea. PG's performance
characteristics are a lot different, especially in the area of
partitioned tables.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-06-26 14:34:40 | Re: Bloom Filter lookup for hash joins |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2013-06-26 14:22:35 | Developer meeting photos |