| Server IP : 104.21.25.180 / Your IP : 162.159.115.41 Web Server : Apache/2.4.37 System : Linux almalinux.duckdns.org 4.18.0-553.111.1.el8_10.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Mar 8 20:06:07 EDT 2026 x86_64 User : ricodeal ( 1046) PHP Version : 7.4.33 Disable Function : NONE MySQL : OFF | cURL : ON | WGET : ON | Perl : ON | Python : ON | Sudo : ON | Pkexec : ON Directory : /usr/share/doc/postgresql-docs/html/ |
Upload File : |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title>5.10. Table Partitioning</title><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="stylesheet.css" /><link rev="made" href="[email protected]" /><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets Vsnapshot" /><link rel="prev" href="ddl-inherit.html" title="5.9. Inheritance" /><link rel="next" href="ddl-foreign-data.html" title="5.11. Foreign Data" /></head><body><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/transitional" class="navheader"><table width="100%" summary="Navigation header"><tr><th colspan="5" align="center">5.10. Table Partitioning</th></tr><tr><td width="10%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="ddl-inherit.html" title="5.9. Inheritance">Prev</a> </td><td width="10%" align="left"><a accesskey="u" href="ddl.html" title="Chapter 5. Data Definition">Up</a></td><th width="60%" align="center">Chapter 5. Data Definition</th><td width="10%" align="right"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html" title="PostgreSQL 10.23 Documentation">Home</a></td><td width="10%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="ddl-foreign-data.html" title="5.11. Foreign Data">Next</a></td></tr></table><hr></hr></div><div class="sect1" id="DDL-PARTITIONING"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both">5.10. Table Partitioning</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-OVERVIEW">5.10.1. Overview</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE">5.10.2. Declarative Partitioning</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-IMPLEMENTATION-INHERITANCE">5.10.3. Implementation Using Inheritance</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION">5.10.4. Partitioning and Constraint Exclusion</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-BEST-PRACTICES">5.10.5. Declarative Partitioning Best Practices</a></span></dt></dl></div><a id="id-1.5.4.12.2" class="indexterm"></a><a id="id-1.5.4.12.3" class="indexterm"></a><a id="id-1.5.4.12.4" class="indexterm"></a><p> <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> supports basic table
partitioning. This section describes why and how to implement
partitioning as part of your database design.
</p><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-OVERVIEW"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.10.1. Overview</h3></div></div></div><p> Partitioning refers to splitting what is logically one large table into
smaller physical pieces. Partitioning can provide several benefits:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p> Query performance can be improved dramatically in certain situations,
particularly when most of the heavily accessed rows of the table are in a
single partition or a small number of partitions. The partitioning
substitutes for leading columns of indexes, reducing index size and
making it more likely that the heavily-used parts of the indexes
fit in memory.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> When queries or updates access a large percentage of a single
partition, performance can be improved by taking advantage
of sequential scan of that partition instead of using an
index and random access reads scattered across the whole table.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing
partitions, if that requirement is planned into the partitioning design.
Doing <code class="command">ALTER TABLE DETACH PARTITION</code> or dropping an individual
partition using <code class="command">DROP TABLE</code> is far faster than a bulk
operation. These commands also entirely avoid the
<code class="command">VACUUM</code> overhead caused by a bulk <code class="command">DELETE</code>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Seldom-used data can be migrated to cheaper and slower storage media.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
The benefits will normally be worthwhile only when a table would
otherwise be very large. The exact point at which a table will
benefit from partitioning depends on the application, although a
rule of thumb is that the size of the table should exceed the physical
memory of the database server.
</p><p> <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> offers built-in support for the
following forms of partitioning:
</p><div class="variablelist"><dl class="variablelist"><dt><span class="term">Range Partitioning</span></dt><dd><p> The table is partitioned into <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ranges</span>”</span> defined
by a key column or set of columns, with no overlap between
the ranges of values assigned to different partitions. For
example, one might partition by date ranges, or by ranges of
identifiers for particular business objects.
</p></dd><dt><span class="term">List Partitioning</span></dt><dd><p> The table is partitioned by explicitly listing which key values
appear in each partition.
</p></dd></dl></div><p>
If your application needs to use other forms of partitioning not listed
above, alternative methods such as inheritance and
<code class="literal">UNION ALL</code> views can be used instead. Such methods
offer flexibility but do not have some of the performance benefits
of built-in declarative partitioning.
</p></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.10.2. Declarative Partitioning</h3></div></div></div><p> <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> offers a way to specify how to
divide a table into pieces called partitions. The table that is divided
is referred to as a <em class="firstterm">partitioned table</em>. The
specification consists of the <em class="firstterm">partitioning method</em>
and a list of columns or expressions to be used as the
<em class="firstterm">partition key</em>.
</p><p> All rows inserted into a partitioned table will be routed to one of the
<em class="firstterm">partitions</em> based on the value of the partition
key. Each partition has a subset of the data defined by its
<em class="firstterm">partition bounds</em>. Currently supported
partitioning methods include range and list, where each partition is
assigned a range of keys and a list of keys, respectively.
</p><p> Partitions may themselves be defined as partitioned tables, using what is
called <em class="firstterm">sub-partitioning</em>. Partitions may have their
own indexes, constraints and default values, distinct from those of other
partitions. Indexes must be created separately for each partition. See
<a class="xref" href="sql-createtable.html" title="CREATE TABLE"><span class="refentrytitle">CREATE TABLE</span></a> for more details on creating partitioned
tables and partitions.
</p><p> It is not possible to turn a regular table into a partitioned table or
vice versa. However, it is possible to add a regular or partitioned table
containing data as a partition of a partitioned table, or remove a
partition from a partitioned table turning it into a standalone table;
see <a class="xref" href="sql-altertable.html" title="ALTER TABLE"><span class="refentrytitle">ALTER TABLE</span></a> to learn more about the
<code class="command">ATTACH PARTITION</code> and <code class="command">DETACH PARTITION</code>
sub-commands.
</p><p> Individual partitions are linked to the partitioned table with inheritance
behind-the-scenes; however, it is not possible to use some of the
inheritance features discussed in the previous section with partitioned
tables and partitions. For example, a partition cannot have any parents
other than the partitioned table it is a partition of, nor can a regular
table inherit from a partitioned table making the latter its parent.
That means partitioned tables and partitions do not participate in
inheritance with regular tables. Since a partition hierarchy consisting
of the partitioned table and its partitions is still an inheritance
hierarchy, <code class="structfield">tableoid</code> and all the normal rules
of inheritance apply as described in
<a class="xref" href="ddl-inherit.html" title="5.9. Inheritance">Section 5.9</a> with some exceptions, most notably:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p> Both <code class="literal">CHECK</code> and <code class="literal">NOT NULL</code>
constraints of a partitioned table are always inherited by all its
partitions. <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraints that are marked
<code class="literal">NO INHERIT</code> are not allowed to be created on
partitioned tables.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Using <code class="literal">ONLY</code> to add or drop a constraint on only the
partitioned table is supported when there are no partitions. Once
partitions exist, using <code class="literal">ONLY</code> will result in an error
as adding or dropping constraints on only the partitioned table, when
partitions exist, is not supported. Instead, constraints can be added
or dropped, when they are not present in the parent table, directly on
the partitions. As a partitioned table does not have any data
directly, attempts to use <code class="command">TRUNCATE</code>
<code class="literal">ONLY</code> on a partitioned table will always return an
error.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Partitions cannot have columns that are not present in the parent. It
is neither possible to specify columns when creating partitions with
<code class="command">CREATE TABLE</code> nor is it possible to add columns to
partitions after-the-fact using <code class="command">ALTER TABLE</code>. Tables may be
added as a partition with <code class="command">ALTER TABLE ... ATTACH PARTITION</code>
only if their columns exactly match the parent, including any
<code class="literal">oid</code> column.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> You cannot drop the <code class="literal">NOT NULL</code> constraint on a
partition's column if the constraint is present in the parent table.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
</p><p> Partitions can also be foreign tables
(see <a class="xref" href="sql-createforeigntable.html" title="CREATE FOREIGN TABLE"><span class="refentrytitle">CREATE FOREIGN TABLE</span></a>),
although these have some limitations that normal tables do not. For
example, data inserted into the partitioned table is not routed to
foreign table partitions.
</p><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-EXAMPLE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.10.2.1. Example</h4></div></div></div><p> Suppose we are constructing a database for a large ice cream company.
The company measures peak temperatures every day as well as ice cream
sales in each region. Conceptually, we want a table like:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement (
city_id int not null,
logdate date not null,
peaktemp int,
unitsales int
);</pre><p>
We know that most queries will access just the last week's, month's or
quarter's data, since the main use of this table will be to prepare
online reports for management. To reduce the amount of old data that
needs to be stored, we decide to only keep the most recent 3 years
worth of data. At the beginning of each month we will remove the oldest
month's data. In this situation we can use partitioning to help us meet
all of our different requirements for the measurements table.
</p><p> To use declarative partitioning in this case, use the following steps:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist compact" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p> Create <code class="structname">measurement</code> table as a partitioned
table by specifying the <code class="literal">PARTITION BY</code> clause, which
includes the partitioning method (<code class="literal">RANGE</code> in this
case) and the list of column(s) to use as the partition key.
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement (
city_id int not null,
logdate date not null,
peaktemp int,
unitsales int
) PARTITION BY RANGE (logdate);</pre><p>
</p><p> You may decide to use multiple columns in the partition key for range
partitioning, if desired. Of course, this will often result in a larger
number of partitions, each of which is individually smaller. On the
other hand, using fewer columns may lead to a coarser-grained
partitioning criteria with smaller number of partitions. A query
accessing the partitioned table will have to scan fewer partitions if
the conditions involve some or all of these columns.
For example, consider a table range partitioned using columns
<code class="structfield">lastname</code> and <code class="structfield">firstname</code> (in that order)
as the partition key.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Create partitions. Each partition's definition must specify the bounds
that correspond to the partitioning method and partition key of the
parent. Note that specifying bounds such that the new partition's
values will overlap with those in one or more existing partitions will
cause an error. Inserting data into the parent table that does not map
to one of the existing partitions will cause an error; an appropriate
partition must be added manually.
</p><p> Partitions thus created are in every way normal
<span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span>
tables (or, possibly, foreign tables). It is possible to specify a
tablespace and storage parameters for each partition separately.
</p><p> It is not necessary to create table constraints describing partition
boundary condition for partitions. Instead, partition constraints are
generated implicitly from the partition bound specification whenever
there is need to refer to them.
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m02 PARTITION OF measurement
FOR VALUES FROM ('2006-02-01') TO ('2006-03-01');
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m03 PARTITION OF measurement
FOR VALUES FROM ('2006-03-01') TO ('2006-04-01');
...
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m11 PARTITION OF measurement
FOR VALUES FROM ('2007-11-01') TO ('2007-12-01');
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m12 PARTITION OF measurement
FOR VALUES FROM ('2007-12-01') TO ('2008-01-01')
TABLESPACE fasttablespace;
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 PARTITION OF measurement
FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-01-01') TO ('2008-02-01')
WITH (parallel_workers = 4)
TABLESPACE fasttablespace;</pre><p>
</p><p> To implement sub-partitioning, specify the
<code class="literal">PARTITION BY</code> clause in the commands used to create
individual partitions, for example:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m02 PARTITION OF measurement
FOR VALUES FROM ('2006-02-01') TO ('2006-03-01')
PARTITION BY RANGE (peaktemp);</pre><p>
After creating partitions of <code class="structname">measurement_y2006m02</code>,
any data inserted into <code class="structname">measurement</code> that is mapped to
<code class="structname">measurement_y2006m02</code> (or data that is directly inserted
into <code class="structname">measurement_y2006m02</code>, provided it satisfies its
partition constraint) will be further redirected to one of its
partitions based on the <code class="structfield">peaktemp</code> column. The partition
key specified may overlap with the parent's partition key, although
care should be taken when specifying the bounds of a sub-partition
such that the set of data it accepts constitutes a subset of what
the partition's own bounds allows; the system does not try to check
whether that's really the case.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Create an index on the key column(s), as well as any other indexes you
might want for every partition. (The key index is not strictly
necessary, but in most scenarios it is helpful. If you intend the key
values to be unique then you should always create a unique or
primary-key constraint for each partition.)
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE INDEX ON measurement_y2006m02 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX ON measurement_y2006m03 (logdate);
...
CREATE INDEX ON measurement_y2007m11 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX ON measurement_y2007m12 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX ON measurement_y2008m01 (logdate);</pre><p>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Ensure that the <a class="xref" href="runtime-config-query.html#GUC-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION">constraint_exclusion</a>
configuration parameter is not disabled in <code class="filename">postgresql.conf</code>.
If it is, queries will not be optimized as desired.
</p></li></ol></div><p>
</p><p> In the above example we would be creating a new partition each month, so
it might be wise to write a script that generates the required DDL
automatically.
</p></div><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENANCE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.10.2.2. Partition Maintenance</h4></div></div></div><p> Normally the set of partitions established when initially defining the
table is not intended to remain static. It is common to want to
remove old partitions of data and periodically add new partitions for
new data. One of the most important advantages of partitioning is
precisely that it allows this otherwise painful task to be executed
nearly instantaneously by manipulating the partition structure, rather
than physically moving large amounts of data around.
</p><p> The simplest option for removing old data is to drop the partition that
is no longer necessary:
</p><pre class="programlisting">DROP TABLE measurement_y2006m02;</pre><p>
This can very quickly delete millions of records because it doesn't have
to individually delete every record. Note however that the above command
requires taking an <code class="literal">ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</code> lock on the parent
table.
</p><p> Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition from
the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right:
</p><pre class="programlisting">ALTER TABLE measurement DETACH PARTITION measurement_y2006m02;</pre><p>
This allows further operations to be performed on the data before
it is dropped. For example, this is often a useful time to back up
the data using <code class="command">COPY</code>, <span class="application">pg_dump</span>, or
similar tools. It might also be a useful time to aggregate data
into smaller formats, perform other data manipulations, or run
reports.
</p><p> Similarly we can add a new partition to handle new data. We can create an
empty partition in the partitioned table just as the original partitions
were created above:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m02 PARTITION OF measurement
FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-02-01') TO ('2008-03-01')
TABLESPACE fasttablespace;</pre><p>
As an alternative, it is sometimes more convenient to create the
new table outside the partition structure, and make it a proper
partition later. This allows the data to be loaded, checked, and
transformed prior to it appearing in the partitioned table:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m02
(LIKE measurement INCLUDING DEFAULTS INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS)
TABLESPACE fasttablespace;
ALTER TABLE measurement_y2008m02 ADD CONSTRAINT y2008m02
CHECK ( logdate >= DATE '2008-02-01' AND logdate < DATE '2008-03-01' );
\copy measurement_y2008m02 from 'measurement_y2008m02'
-- possibly some other data preparation work
ALTER TABLE measurement ATTACH PARTITION measurement_y2008m02
FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-02-01') TO ('2008-03-01' );</pre><p>
</p><p> Before running the <code class="command">ATTACH PARTITION</code> command, it is
recommended to create a <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraint on the table to
be attached matching the desired partition constraint. That way,
the system will be able to skip the scan to validate the implicit
partition constraint. Without the <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraint,
the table will be scanned to validate the partition constraint while
holding an <code class="literal">ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</code> lock on the parent table.
It may be desired to drop the redundant <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraint
after <code class="command">ATTACH PARTITION</code> is finished.
</p></div><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-LIMITATIONS"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.10.2.3. Limitations</h4></div></div></div><p> The following limitations apply to partitioned tables:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p> There is no facility available to create the matching indexes on all
partitions automatically. Indexes must be added to each partition with
separate commands. This also means that there is no way to create a
primary key, unique constraint, or exclusion constraint spanning all
partitions; it is only possible to constrain each leaf partition
individually.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Since primary keys are not supported on partitioned tables, foreign
keys referencing partitioned tables are not supported, nor are foreign
key references from a partitioned table to some other table.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Using the <code class="literal">ON CONFLICT</code> clause with partitioned tables
will cause an error, because unique or exclusion constraints can only be
created on individual partitions. There is no support for enforcing
uniqueness (or an exclusion constraint) across an entire partitioning
hierarchy.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> An <code class="command">UPDATE</code> that causes a row to move from one partition to
another fails, because the new value of the row fails to satisfy the
implicit partition constraint of the original partition.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Row triggers, if necessary, must be defined on individual partitions,
not the partitioned table.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Mixing temporary and permanent relations in the same partition tree is
not allowed. Hence, if the partitioned table is permanent, so must be
its partitions and likewise if the partitioned table is temporary. When
using temporary relations, all members of the partition tree have to be
from the same session.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
</p></div></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-IMPLEMENTATION-INHERITANCE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.10.3. Implementation Using Inheritance</h3></div></div></div><p> While the built-in declarative partitioning is suitable for most
common use cases, there are some circumstances where a more flexible
approach may be useful. Partitioning can be implemented using table
inheritance, which allows for several features which are not supported
by declarative partitioning, such as:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p> Partitioning enforces a rule that all partitions must have exactly
the same set of columns as the parent, but table inheritance allows
children to have extra columns not present in the parent.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Table inheritance allows for multiple inheritance.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Declarative partitioning only supports list and range partitioning,
whereas table inheritance allows data to be divided in a manner of
the user's choosing. (Note, however, that if constraint exclusion is
unable to prune partitions effectively, query performance will be very
poor.)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Some operations require a stronger lock when using declarative
partitioning than when using table inheritance. For example, adding
or removing a partition to or from a partitioned table requires taking
an <code class="literal">ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</code> lock on the parent table,
whereas a <code class="literal">SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE</code> lock is enough
in the case of regular inheritance.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
</p><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-INHERITANCE-EXAMPLE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.10.3.1. Example</h4></div></div></div><p> We use the non-partitioned <code class="structname">measurement</code>
table above. To implement partitioning using inheritance, use
the following steps:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist compact" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p> Create the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">master</span>”</span> table, from which all of the
partitions will inherit. This table will contain no data. Do not
define any check constraints on this table, unless you intend them
to be applied equally to all partitions. There is no point in
defining any indexes or unique constraints on it, either. For our
example, the master table is the <code class="structname">measurement</code>
table as originally defined.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Create several <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">child</span>”</span> tables that each inherit from
the master table. Normally, these tables will not add any columns
to the set inherited from the master. Just as with declarative
partitioning, these partitions are in every way normal
<span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> tables (or foreign tables).
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m02 () INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m03 () INHERITS (measurement);
...
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m11 () INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m12 () INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 () INHERITS (measurement);</pre><p>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Add non-overlapping table constraints to the partition tables to
define the allowed key values in each partition.
</p><p> Typical examples would be:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CHECK ( x = 1 )
CHECK ( county IN ( 'Oxfordshire', 'Buckinghamshire', 'Warwickshire' ))
CHECK ( outletID >= 100 AND outletID < 200 )</pre><p>
Ensure that the constraints guarantee that there is no overlap
between the key values permitted in different partitions. A common
mistake is to set up range constraints like:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CHECK ( outletID BETWEEN 100 AND 200 )
CHECK ( outletID BETWEEN 200 AND 300 )</pre><p>
This is wrong since it is not clear which partition the key value
200 belongs in.
</p><p> It would be better to instead create partitions as follows:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m02 (
CHECK ( logdate >= DATE '2006-02-01' AND logdate < DATE '2006-03-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m03 (
CHECK ( logdate >= DATE '2006-03-01' AND logdate < DATE '2006-04-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);
...
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m11 (
CHECK ( logdate >= DATE '2007-11-01' AND logdate < DATE '2007-12-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m12 (
CHECK ( logdate >= DATE '2007-12-01' AND logdate < DATE '2008-01-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 (
CHECK ( logdate >= DATE '2008-01-01' AND logdate < DATE '2008-02-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);</pre><p>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> For each partition, create an index on the key column(s),
as well as any other indexes you might want.
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE INDEX measurement_y2006m02_logdate ON measurement_y2006m02 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2006m03_logdate ON measurement_y2006m03 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2007m11_logdate ON measurement_y2007m11 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2007m12_logdate ON measurement_y2007m12 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2008m01_logdate ON measurement_y2008m01 (logdate);</pre><p>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> We want our application to be able to say <code class="literal">INSERT INTO
measurement ...</code> and have the data be redirected into the
appropriate partition table. We can arrange that by attaching
a suitable trigger function to the master table.
If data will be added only to the latest partition, we can
use a very simple trigger function:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION measurement_insert_trigger()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
BEGIN
INSERT INTO measurement_y2008m01 VALUES (NEW.*);
RETURN NULL;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;</pre><p>
</p><p> After creating the function, we create a trigger which
calls the trigger function:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TRIGGER insert_measurement_trigger
BEFORE INSERT ON measurement
FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE measurement_insert_trigger();</pre><p>
We must redefine the trigger function each month so that it always
points to the current partition. The trigger definition does
not need to be updated, however.
</p><p> We might want to insert data and have the server automatically
locate the partition into which the row should be added. We
could do this with a more complex trigger function, for example:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION measurement_insert_trigger()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
BEGIN
IF ( NEW.logdate >= DATE '2006-02-01' AND
NEW.logdate < DATE '2006-03-01' ) THEN
INSERT INTO measurement_y2006m02 VALUES (NEW.*);
ELSIF ( NEW.logdate >= DATE '2006-03-01' AND
NEW.logdate < DATE '2006-04-01' ) THEN
INSERT INTO measurement_y2006m03 VALUES (NEW.*);
...
ELSIF ( NEW.logdate >= DATE '2008-01-01' AND
NEW.logdate < DATE '2008-02-01' ) THEN
INSERT INTO measurement_y2008m01 VALUES (NEW.*);
ELSE
RAISE EXCEPTION 'Date out of range. Fix the measurement_insert_trigger() function!';
END IF;
RETURN NULL;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;</pre><p>
The trigger definition is the same as before.
Note that each <code class="literal">IF</code> test must exactly match the
<code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraint for its partition.
</p><p> While this function is more complex than the single-month case,
it doesn't need to be updated as often, since branches can be
added in advance of being needed.
</p><div class="note"><h3 class="title">Note</h3><p> In practice it might be best to check the newest partition first,
if most inserts go into that partition. For simplicity we have
shown the trigger's tests in the same order as in other parts
of this example.
</p></div><p> A different approach to redirecting inserts into the appropriate
partition table is to set up rules, instead of a trigger, on the
master table. For example:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE RULE measurement_insert_y2006m02 AS
ON INSERT TO measurement WHERE
( logdate >= DATE '2006-02-01' AND logdate < DATE '2006-03-01' )
DO INSTEAD
INSERT INTO measurement_y2006m02 VALUES (NEW.*);
...
CREATE RULE measurement_insert_y2008m01 AS
ON INSERT TO measurement WHERE
( logdate >= DATE '2008-01-01' AND logdate < DATE '2008-02-01' )
DO INSTEAD
INSERT INTO measurement_y2008m01 VALUES (NEW.*);</pre><p>
A rule has significantly more overhead than a trigger, but the
overhead is paid once per query rather than once per row, so this
method might be advantageous for bulk-insert situations. In most
cases, however, the trigger method will offer better performance.
</p><p> Be aware that <code class="command">COPY</code> ignores rules. If you want to
use <code class="command">COPY</code> to insert data, you'll need to copy into the
correct partition table rather than into the master. <code class="command">COPY</code>
does fire triggers, so you can use it normally if you use the trigger
approach.
</p><p> Another disadvantage of the rule approach is that there is no simple
way to force an error if the set of rules doesn't cover the insertion
date; the data will silently go into the master table instead.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Ensure that the <a class="xref" href="runtime-config-query.html#GUC-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION">constraint_exclusion</a>
configuration parameter is not disabled in
<code class="filename">postgresql.conf</code>.
If it is, queries will not be optimized as desired.
</p></li></ol></div><p>
</p><p> As we can see, a complex partitioning scheme could require a
substantial amount of DDL. In the above example we would be creating
a new partition each month, so it might be wise to write a script that
generates the required DDL automatically.
</p></div><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-INHERITANCE-MAINTENANCE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.10.3.2. Partition Maintenance</h4></div></div></div><p> To remove old data quickly, simply drop the partition that is no longer
necessary:
</p><pre class="programlisting">DROP TABLE measurement_y2006m02;</pre><p>
</p><p> To remove the partition from the partitioned table but retain access to
it as a table in its own right:
</p><pre class="programlisting">ALTER TABLE measurement_y2006m02 NO INHERIT measurement;</pre><p>
</p><p> To add a new partition to handle new data, create an empty partition
just as the original partitions were created above:
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m02 (
CHECK ( logdate >= DATE '2008-02-01' AND logdate < DATE '2008-03-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);</pre><p>
Alternatively, one may want to create the new table outside the partition
structure, and make it a partition after the data is loaded, checked,
and transformed.
</p><pre class="programlisting">CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m02
(LIKE measurement INCLUDING DEFAULTS INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS);
ALTER TABLE measurement_y2008m02 ADD CONSTRAINT y2008m02
CHECK ( logdate >= DATE '2008-02-01' AND logdate < DATE '2008-03-01' );
\copy measurement_y2008m02 from 'measurement_y2008m02'
-- possibly some other data preparation work
ALTER TABLE measurement_y2008m02 INHERIT measurement;</pre><p>
</p></div><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-INHERITANCE-CAVEATS"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.10.3.3. Caveats</h4></div></div></div><p> The following caveats apply to partitioned tables implemented using
inheritance:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p> There is no automatic way to verify that all of the
<code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraints are mutually
exclusive. It is safer to create code that generates
partitions and creates and/or modifies associated objects than
to write each by hand.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> The schemes shown here assume that the partition key column(s)
of a row never change, or at least do not change enough to require
it to move to another partition. An <code class="command">UPDATE</code> that attempts
to do that will fail because of the <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraints.
If you need to handle such cases, you can put suitable update triggers
on the partition tables, but it makes management of the structure
much more complicated.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> If you are using manual <code class="command">VACUUM</code> or
<code class="command">ANALYZE</code> commands, don't forget that
you need to run them on each partition individually. A command like:
</p><pre class="programlisting">ANALYZE measurement;</pre><p>
will only process the master table.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> <code class="command">INSERT</code> statements with <code class="literal">ON CONFLICT</code>
clauses are unlikely to work as expected, as the <code class="literal">ON CONFLICT</code>
action is only taken in case of unique violations on the specified
target relation, not its child relations.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Triggers or rules will be needed to route rows to the desired
partition, unless the application is explicitly aware of the
partitioning scheme. Triggers may be complicated to write, and will
be much slower than the tuple routing performed internally by
declarative partitioning.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
</p></div></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.10.4. Partitioning and Constraint Exclusion</h3></div></div></div><a id="id-1.5.4.12.9.2" class="indexterm"></a><p> <em class="firstterm">Constraint exclusion</em> is a query optimization technique
that improves performance for partitioned tables defined in the
fashion described above (both declaratively partitioned tables and those
implemented using inheritance). As an example:
</p><pre class="programlisting">SET constraint_exclusion = on;
SELECT count(*) FROM measurement WHERE logdate >= DATE '2008-01-01';</pre><p>
Without constraint exclusion, the above query would scan each of
the partitions of the <code class="structname">measurement</code> table. With constraint
exclusion enabled, the planner will examine the constraints of each
partition and try to prove that the partition need not
be scanned because it could not contain any rows meeting the query's
<code class="literal">WHERE</code> clause. When the planner can prove this, it
excludes the partition from the query plan.
</p><p> You can use the <code class="command">EXPLAIN</code> command to show the difference
between a plan with <code class="varname">constraint_exclusion</code> on and a plan
with it off. A typical unoptimized plan for this type of table setup is:
</p><pre class="programlisting">SET constraint_exclusion = off;
EXPLAIN SELECT count(*) FROM measurement WHERE logdate >= DATE '2008-01-01';
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=158.66..158.68 rows=1 width=0)
-> Append (cost=0.00..151.88 rows=2715 width=0)
-> Seq Scan on measurement (cost=0.00..30.38 rows=543 width=0)
Filter: (logdate >= '2008-01-01'::date)
-> Seq Scan on measurement_y2006m02 measurement (cost=0.00..30.38 rows=543 width=0)
Filter: (logdate >= '2008-01-01'::date)
-> Seq Scan on measurement_y2006m03 measurement (cost=0.00..30.38 rows=543 width=0)
Filter: (logdate >= '2008-01-01'::date)
...
-> Seq Scan on measurement_y2007m12 measurement (cost=0.00..30.38 rows=543 width=0)
Filter: (logdate >= '2008-01-01'::date)
-> Seq Scan on measurement_y2008m01 measurement (cost=0.00..30.38 rows=543 width=0)
Filter: (logdate >= '2008-01-01'::date)</pre><p>
Some or all of the partitions might use index scans instead of
full-table sequential scans, but the point here is that there
is no need to scan the older partitions at all to answer this query.
When we enable constraint exclusion, we get a significantly
cheaper plan that will deliver the same answer:
</p><pre class="programlisting">SET constraint_exclusion = on;
EXPLAIN SELECT count(*) FROM measurement WHERE logdate >= DATE '2008-01-01';
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=63.47..63.48 rows=1 width=0)
-> Append (cost=0.00..60.75 rows=1086 width=0)
-> Seq Scan on measurement (cost=0.00..30.38 rows=543 width=0)
Filter: (logdate >= '2008-01-01'::date)
-> Seq Scan on measurement_y2008m01 measurement (cost=0.00..30.38 rows=543 width=0)
Filter: (logdate >= '2008-01-01'::date)</pre><p>
</p><p> Note that constraint exclusion is driven only by <code class="literal">CHECK</code>
constraints, not by the presence of indexes. Therefore it isn't
necessary to define indexes on the key columns. Whether an index
needs to be created for a given partition depends on whether you
expect that queries that scan the partition will generally scan
a large part of the partition or just a small part. An index will
be helpful in the latter case but not the former.
</p><p> The default (and recommended) setting of
<a class="xref" href="runtime-config-query.html#GUC-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION">constraint_exclusion</a> is actually neither
<code class="literal">on</code> nor <code class="literal">off</code>, but an intermediate setting
called <code class="literal">partition</code>, which causes the technique to be
applied only to queries that are likely to be working on partitioned
tables. The <code class="literal">on</code> setting causes the planner to examine
<code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraints in all queries, even simple ones that
are unlikely to benefit.
</p><p> The following caveats apply to constraint exclusion, which is used by
both inheritance and partitioned tables:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p> Constraint exclusion only works when the query's <code class="literal">WHERE</code>
clause contains constants (or externally supplied parameters).
For example, a comparison against a non-immutable function such as
<code class="function">CURRENT_TIMESTAMP</code> cannot be optimized, since the
planner cannot know which partition the function value might fall
into at run time.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> Keep the partitioning constraints simple, else the planner may not be
able to prove that partitions don't need to be visited. Use simple
equality conditions for list partitioning, or simple
range tests for range partitioning, as illustrated in the preceding
examples. A good rule of thumb is that partitioning constraints should
contain only comparisons of the partitioning column(s) to constants
using B-tree-indexable operators, which applies even to partitioned
tables, because only B-tree-indexable column(s) are allowed in the
partition key. (This is not a problem when using declarative
partitioning, since the automatically generated constraints are simple
enough to be understood by the planner.)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p> All constraints on all partitions of the master table are examined
during constraint exclusion, so large numbers of partitions are likely
to increase query planning time considerably. Partitioning using
these techniques will work well with up to perhaps a hundred partitions;
don't try to use many thousands of partitions.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
</p></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-BEST-PRACTICES"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.10.5. Declarative Partitioning Best Practices</h3></div></div></div><p> The choice of how to partition a table should be made carefully as the
performance of query planning and execution can be negatively affected by
poor design.
</p><p> One of the most critical design decisions will be the column or columns
by which you partition your data. Often the best choice will be to
partition by the column or set of columns which most commonly appear in
<code class="literal">WHERE</code> clauses of queries being executed on the
partitioned table. <code class="literal">WHERE</code> clause items that match and
are compatible with the partition key can be used to prune unneeded
partitions. Removal of unwanted data is also a factor to consider when
planning your partitioning strategy. An entire partition can be detached
fairly quickly, so it may be beneficial to design the partition strategy
in such a way that all data to be removed at once is located in a single
partition.
</p><p> Choosing the target number of partitions that the table should be divided
into is also a critical decision to make. Not having enough partitions
may mean that indexes remain too large and that data locality remains poor
which could result in low cache hit ratios. However, dividing the table
into too many partitions can also cause issues. Too many partitions can
mean longer query planning times and higher memory consumption during both
query planning and execution. When choosing how to partition your table,
it's also important to consider what changes may occur in the future. For
example, if you choose to have one partition per customer and you
currently have a small number of large customers, consider the
implications if in several years you instead find yourself with a large
number of small customers. In this case, it may be better to choose to
partition by <code class="literal">RANGE</code> and choose a reasonable number of
partitions, each containing a fixed number of customers, rather than
trying to partition by <code class="literal">LIST</code> and hoping that the number
of customers does not increase beyond what it is practical to partition
the data by.
</p><p> Sub-partitioning can be useful to further divide partitions that are
expected to become larger than other partitions, although excessive
sub-partitioning can easily lead to large numbers of partitions and can
cause the same problems mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
</p><p> It is also important to consider the overhead of partitioning during
query planning and execution. The query planner is generally able to
handle partition hierarchies with up to a few hundred partitions.
Planning times become longer and memory consumption becomes higher as more
partitions are added. This is particularly true for the
<code class="command">UPDATE</code> and <code class="command">DELETE</code> commands. Another
reason to be concerned about having a large number of partitions is that
the server's memory consumption may grow significantly over a period of
time, especially if many sessions touch large numbers of partitions.
That's because each partition requires its metadata to be loaded into the
local memory of each session that touches it.
</p><p> With data warehouse type workloads, it can make sense to use a larger
number of partitions than with an <acronym class="acronym">OLTP</acronym> type workload.
Generally, in data warehouses, query planning time is less of a concern as
the majority of processing time is spent during query execution. With
either of these two types of workload, it is important to make the right
decisions early, as re-partitioning large quantities of data can be
painfully slow. Simulations of the intended workload are often beneficial
for optimizing the partitioning strategy. Never assume that more
partitions are better than fewer partitions and vice-versa.
</p></div></div><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/transitional" class="navfooter"><hr></hr><table width="100%" summary="Navigation footer"><tr><td width="40%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="ddl-inherit.html" title="5.9. Inheritance">Prev</a> </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="u" href="ddl.html" title="Chapter 5. Data Definition">Up</a></td><td width="40%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="ddl-foreign-data.html" title="5.11. Foreign Data">Next</a></td></tr><tr><td width="40%" align="left" valign="top">5.9. Inheritance </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html" title="PostgreSQL 10.23 Documentation">Home</a></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"> 5.11. Foreign Data</td></tr></table></div></body></html>