| From: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |
| Date: | 2008-01-12 10:40:46 |
| Message-ID: | d3c4af540801120240k14e8e39t5f1a9c4f605bc869@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Jan 12, 2008 6:29 AM, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>
>
> The syntax is half the problem, performance is the other. I will bring
> the performance issues up in another thread. Yes, we are confident that
> we can address the performance issues that rule out the existing
> partitioning for many applications. We need it for our own stuff! :P
>
Agreed, syntax is just the sugar.
Also other than performance, how are updates involving partition keys
causing the resultant tuple to end up in a new partition handled here?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Michel Pouré | 2008-01-12 12:27:34 | Postgresql Materialized views |
| Previous Message | NikhilS | 2008-01-12 10:31:19 | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |