| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Haile <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning |
| Date: | 2007-01-10 21:09:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20070110210931.GY12217@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:28:00PM -0500, Jeremy Haile wrote:
> This seems so much more intuitive and simpler than what is required to
> set it up in PostgreSQL. Does PostgreSQL's approach to table
> partitioning have any advantage over MySQL? Is a "nicer" syntax planned
> for Postgres?
The focus was to get the base functionality working, and working
correctly. Another consideration is that there's multiple ways to
accomplish the partitioning; exposing the basic functionality without
enforcing a given interface provides more flexibility (ie: it appears
that you can't do list partitioning with MySQL, while you can with
PostgreSQL).
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Haile | 2007-01-10 21:15:54 | Re: Partitioning |
| Previous Message | Steven Flatt | 2007-01-10 21:00:00 | Re: table partioning performance |