Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: partitioning question 1

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Ben <midfield(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: partitioning question 1
Date: 2010-10-28 18:50:14
Message-ID: 1288291814.22359.31.camel@jd-desktop (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 11:44 -0700, Ben wrote:

> > Yes the constraints have to be static. Not sure about the operator
> > question honestly.
> 
> this seems to severely restrict their usefulness -- our queries are data warehouse analytical -type  queries, so the constraints are usually data-driven (come from joining against other tables.)

Well it does and it doesn't. Keep in mind that the constraint can be:

date >= '2010-10-01" and date <= '2010-10-31'

What it can't be is something that contains date_part() or extract() (as
an example) 

> 
> >> is my intuition completely off on this?
> > 
> > You may actually want to look into expression indexes, not clustered
> > ones.

Take a look at the docs:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/indexes-expressional.html

It "could" be considered partitioning without breaking up the table,
just the indexes.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


-- 
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: BenDate: 2010-10-28 19:25:16
Subject: Re: partitioning question 1
Previous:From: BenDate: 2010-10-28 18:44:41
Subject: Re: partitioning question 1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group