| From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Jeff Cohen <jcohen(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Warren Turkal <turkal(at)google(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |
| Date: | 2008-01-15 13:38:07 |
| Message-ID: | 478CB73F.208@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> I guess it would go to some "default" partition ?
Which doesn't have a name so far, which prevents from addressing that
partition. Nor is it pretty well defined, it's just a rest.
> sure, but this can become really tedious for 1024 partitions,
Well, managing 1024 partitions manually is a tedious job, no matter what
grammar you take: You'll have to deal with 1024 different partition names.
What do you need so many partitions for?
> not to
> mention hard for optimiser.
It's pretty much the same for the optimizer: a binary tree. Granted,
that binary tree should better be balanced by the RDBMS.
Regards
Markus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-01-15 13:54:46 | Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets |
| Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2008-01-15 13:33:43 | Re: Index trouble with 8.3b4 |