From: | "Matt Casters" <Matt(dot)Casters(at)advalvas(dot)be> |
---|---|
To: | "Yann Michel" <yann-postgresql(at)spline(dot)de> |
Cc: | "Matt Casters" <matt(dot)casters(at)advalvas(dot)be>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: |
Date: | 2005-01-21 12:51:02 |
Message-ID: | 36073.212.100.172.237.1106311862.squirrel@212.100.172.237 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>> > Some people have been doing it using a union view. There isn't actually
>> > a partition feature.
>>
>> Actually, there is. If found this example on pgsql-performance:
>>
>> >> CREATE TABLE super_foo ( partition NUMERIC, bar NUMERIC );
>> >> ANALYZE super_foo ;
>> >>
>> >> CREATE TABLE sub_foo1 () INHERITS ( super_foo );
> [...]
>> >>
>> >> CREATE TABLE sub_foo2 () INHERITS ( super_foo );
> [...]
>> >>
>
> Yes, this could be used instead of a view. But there is one thing
> missing. You can't just insert into super_foo and aquire the "correct
> partition". You will still have to insert into the correct underlying
> table. "Real" partitioning will take care of correct partition
> selection.
This IS bad news. It would mean a serious change in the ETL.
I think I can solve the other problems, but I don't know about this one...
Regards,
Matt
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-01-21 13:33:24 | Re: [SQL] OFFSET impact on Performance??? |
Previous Message | Yann Michel | 2005-01-21 12:30:08 | Re: |