Re: Named vs Unnamed Partitions

Hi,

Simon Riggs wrote:
> When I delete all rows WHERE some_date < 'cut-off date' on a segment
> boundary value that would delete all segments that met the criteria. The
> following VACUUM will then return those segments to be read-write, where
> they can then be refilled with new incoming data. The only command we
> would have to run is the DELETE, everything else is automatic.

Agreed, that would be very nice.

> So not convinced of the need for named sections of tables yet. It all
> seems like detail, rather than actually what we want for managing large
> tables.

What do you think about letting the database system know the split point
vs it having to find optimal split points automatically?

Read-write vs. read-only is as good start, but can that concept be
expanded to automatically choosing hash partitioning between storage
systems, for example? Or more generally: can the database system gather
enough information about the storage systems to take a decision as good
as or better than the DBA?

Regards

Markus