Re: Named vs Unnamed Partitions

Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I have to admit I always found it kludgy to have objects named
>> invoices_2000_JAN and invoices_2000_FEB and so on. It's kind of an meta
>> denormalization. But so is specifying where clauses repeatedly.
>
> The idea for using the WHERE clauses was to specifically avoid naming.

I understand, and I'm all for avoiding needless, kludgy names.

As I pointed out, knowledge of split points might be important for the
database system. Maybe we can store the split point without the need for
names? Dunno.

> If you guys really want names, we can have names, but I think I want to
> see a case where the storage characteristics of the table are so complex
> we can only make sense of it by naming particular chunks.

Well, assuming you only have to deal with one split point, that's
certainly true. However, there are people using more than two table
spaces, thus obviously needing more split points.

Can we name the split points, rather than the partitions?

Regards

Markus