The pitfalls of partitioning Postgres yourself

I mentioned this towards the bottom of the post, but to reiterate: we're extremely grateful to Laurenz for helping us out here, and his post on this is more than worth checking out: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com/en/partitioned-table-sta...

(plus an interesting discussion in the comments of that post on how the query planner chose a certain row estimate in the specific case that Laurenz shared!)

The other thing I'll add is that we still haven't figured out:

1. An optimal ANALYZE schedule here on parent partitions; we're opting to over-analyze than under-analyze at the moment, because it seems like our query distribution might change quite often.

2. Whether double-partitioned tables (we have some tables partitioned by time series first, and an enum value second) need analyze on the intermediate tables, or whether the top-level parent and bottom-level child tables are enough. So far just the top-level and leaf tables seem good enough.

Ha, what a coincidence. Just today I was reading a three year old Stackoverflow discussion about this [1].

It prompted Laurenz to submit the documentation patch that is cited in the article. In the discussion of the patch itself, people seem to conclude that it's a good improvement to the docs, but that the behaviour itself is a bit of a footgun. [2]

[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/73951604/autovacuum-and-...

[2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y8cQJIMFAe7QT73/%40mom...

I ran into the exact same problem few weeks ago too with around 1k partitions but they were small. Ended up adding cronjob to run analyze on the partitioned table (not the partitions!) once a day. I hope this gets fixed in future version of PG.

They didn’t say why they didn’t use the built-in partitioning system.