Re: 2D partitioning of VLDB - sane or not?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jason(at)mbi(dot)ucla(dot)edu
Subject: Re: 2D partitioning of VLDB - sane or not?
Date: 2007-08-13 23:21:45
Message-ID: 200708131621.46018.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jason,

> Which brings us back to the original issue. If I decide to stick with
> the current implementation and not "improve our existing partitioning
> mechanisms to scale to 100,000 partitions", I could do something like:
>
> Maintain 2 copies of the parent table (partitioned by 256).
> Inherit from both to a relation table.
>
> Does this get me out of the woods with the query analyzer? Doesn't seem
> like it would, necessarily, at least.

You don't get a table's partitions when you inherit. Just the schema of
the master.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-08-14 02:30:38 Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-08-13 23:18:41 Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Pluggable Optimizer Interface