Re: Inheritance efficiency

2010/5/1 Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> Vincenzo Romano wrote:
>>
>> I argued that O(n) stuff will keep it away from "enterprise grade"
>> applications.
>> I've been told earlier that "It is fine for dozens of child tables,
>> but not thousands;
>> it does need improvement."
>> This is not enterprise grade
>
> Enterprise grade doesn't mean anything.  Partitioning designs that require
> thousands of child tables to work right are fundamentally misdesigned
> anyway, so there is no reason for any of the contributors to the project to
> work on improving support for them.  There are far too many obvious
> improvements that could be made to PostgreSQL, ones that will benefit vastly
> more people, to divert resources toward something you shouldn't be dong
> anyway like that.

While I can agree that "Enterprise grade" is a buzzword, it does mean
something: "very large amount of data" among other.
There's no "fundamentally good design", but only a design which takes
limitations and constraints into account.

I just say that sublinear algorithms allow better handling for growing
numbers of objects.

--
Vincenzo Romano
NotOrAnd Information Technologies
cel. +39 339 8083886 | gtalk. vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it
fix. +39 0823 454163 | skype. notorand.it
fax. +39 02 700506964 | msn. notorand.it
NON QVIETIS MARIBVS NAVTA PERITVS