Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Path question

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-09-01 23:26:52
Subject: Re: "serializable" in comments and names
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-09-01 23:16:34
Subject: Re: Fix for pg_upgrade's forcing pg_controldata into English

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group