| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |
| Date: | 2008-01-12 17:47:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1200160050.4266.1367.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 01:59 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> The syntax is half the problem, performance is the other.
The syntax looks great to me, but I think it is about 5% of the problem,
maybe less. I don't really have any questions about the syntax, but I
may have thoughts when the implementation details emerge.
I'm not sure you'll be able to use PARTITION BY since its part of the
SQL Standard for Windowed grouping, which we do hope to implement one
day. It will be confusing to have two completely separate meanings for
the one phrase in our grammar.
The burning questions from my perspective are:
What is a partition?
How will the syntax be implemented within the backend?
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2008-01-12 17:51:56 | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-01-12 17:34:48 | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |