Re: Named vs Unnamed Partitions

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:30 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:

> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > With that in mind, can I clarify what you're thinking, please?
>
> Sure, I can try to clarify:
>
> > 2) the things you've been discussing are essential requirements of
> > partitioning and we could never consider it complete until they are also
> > included and we must therefore talk about them now to check that its all
> > possible before we do anything on SE
>
> I thought so, but am slowly dropping that point of view. In favor of
> something like: hey, if you manage to do it all automatically, cool, go
> for it!
>
> > 3) doing SE first is right, I'm just thinking ahead
>
> Yes, SE certainly has merit. Combine it with some sort of maintained
> CLUSTERing order and it's worth doing, IMO.
>
> I'm not convinced about dynamic partitioning being able to generally
> replace explicit partitioning anytime soon.

In all cases, no. But do you think it would work well for the specific
databases you've used partitioning on? Would it be possible to check?

> > Sorry if that seems blunt, I'm just not clear where we're going.
>
> Well, implicit or automatic partitioning is still a pretty new concept
> to me, but I'm slowly beginning to like it. Thank you for pointing me at it.

OK, thanks. I'll write up what I've learned in last few days into a new
version of the proposal and put it on the Wiki.

--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com