From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table Partitioning is in 8.1 |
Date: | 2005-09-21 21:47:31 |
Message-ID: | 1127339251.5056.15.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On K, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the
> > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but
> > not quite well enough to make a song and dance about yet?
>
> I hardly think that the existing constraint-exclusion code is enough for
> us to claim we "support table partitioning". There's too much grunt
> work that the DBA still has to do to set up a partitioning arrangement.
We can probably claim that :
"Postgres has *low-level* support for table partitioning using and
Inheritance, Rules/Triggers and Constraint Exclusion , enabling DBAs to
set up complex partitioning schemes"
There certainly is much grunt work, but then we can get a better CE
performance than just "PARTITION TABLE TTT BY XXX" would give by having
constraints on multiple fields in some/all partitions, both overlapping
and not, possibly resulting in a better overall system. That is what
"low-level" in the above statement means.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2005-09-21 22:06:33 | What has happened to pgxs? |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-09-21 21:40:50 | Re: Table Partitioning is in 8.1 |