Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Path question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Path question
Date: 2010-09-01 15:00:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
=?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is really premature, and anything you do along those lines now will
>> probably never get committed.

> well, why non-overlapping? the idea is to make append smart enough to
> take the sorted lists from below and merge them which will give sorted
> output as well.

Well, an extra merge step is going to change the cost comparisons quite
a bit; see Greg Starks' comments.  But in any case, my point wasn't that
this is something we should never do; it was that it makes more sense to
wait till something has happened with explicit partitioning.

>> The project direction is that we are going to add some explicit
>> representation of partitioned tables.

> can you outline some ideas here and maybe point to some useful discussion here?

There's been boatloads of discussion of partitioning, and at least one
submitted patch, over the past year or so ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-09-01 15:02:56
Subject: "serializable" in comments and names
Previous:From: Cristian BittelDate: 2010-09-01 14:49:52
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group