Re:

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

In response to

  • Re: at 2005-01-21 12:30:08 from Yann Michel

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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: