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

Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps

From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Date: 2008-01-04 12:49:27
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> The smaller the partition size the greater the overhead of managing it.
> Also I've been looking at read-only tables and compression, as you may
> know. My idea was that in the future we could mark segments as either
> - read-only 
> - compressed
> - able to be shipped off to hierarchical storage
> Those ideas work best if the partitioning is based around the physical
> file sizes we use for segments.

As much as I'd like this simplification.. But I'm still thinking of 
these segments as an implementation detail of Postgres, and not 
something the user should have to deal with.

Allowing the DBA to move segments to a different table space and giving 
him the possibility to check which tuples are in which segment seems 
awkward from a users perspective, IMO.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Glyn AstillDate: 2008-01-04 13:23:18
Subject: Problem with PgTcl auditing function on trigger
Previous:From: Markus SchiltknechtDate: 2008-01-04 12:39:42
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps

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