| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Auto Partitioning |
| Date: | 2007-04-05 08:10:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20070405081029.GA17587@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:34:03PM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >If we don't have multi-table indexes how do we enforce a primary key
> >against a partitioned set?
>
> The executor would have to be clever enough to not do a single index
> scan, but possibly scan through multiple indexes when asking for
> uniqueness, depending on the partitioning rule set.
But it's not the executor that checks uniqueness, it's built into the
btre code.
If someone manages to crack uniqueness for GiST indexes, we'll have our
answer, since it has exactly the same problem but on a different scale.
(Or vice-versa, if some gets uniqueness for multiple indexes, we can do
it for GiST also).
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | NikhilS | 2007-04-05 08:29:35 | Re: Auto Partitioning |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-04-05 06:40:43 | Re: pg_index updates and SI invalidation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | NikhilS | 2007-04-05 08:29:35 | Re: Auto Partitioning |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-05 04:39:22 | Re: IDENTITY/GENERATED v36 Re: Final version of IDENTITY/GENERATED patch |