| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Path question |
| Date: | 2010-09-01 23:20:12 |
| Message-ID: | 7D02C7EC-93D2-4B09-9A0D-1655AF87179A@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> For what it's worth I disagree with Tom. I think this is a situation
> where we need *both* types of solution. Ideally we will be able to use
> a plain Append node for cases where we know the relative ordering of
> the data in different partitions, but there will always be cases where
> the structured partition data doesn't actually match up with the
> ordering requested and we'll need to fall back to a merge-append node.
I agree. Explicit partitioning may open up some additional optimization possibilities in certain cases, but Merge Append is more general and extremely valuable in its own right.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-01 23:26:52 | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-01 23:16:34 | Re: Fix for pg_upgrade's forcing pg_controldata into English |