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: (view raw or whole 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.


In response to


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 © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group