Re: Table Partitioning is in 8.1

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>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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