Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, henk de wit <henk53602(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Date: 2009-05-08 02:20:12
Message-ID: 603c8f070905071920i47a6fb35r73876d28d39c9155@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Agreed. Perhaps I should say then that the syntax needs to express the
> requirements of the planner/executor behaviour, rather than being the
> main aspect of the feature, as some have suggested.

Agreed.

> Hopefully, notions of partitioning won't be directly tied to chunking of
> data for parallel query access. Most queries access recent data and
> hence only a single partition (or stripe), so partitioning and
> parallelism and frequently exactly orthogonal.

Yes, I think those things are unrelated.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message david 2009-05-08 02:52:13 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-05-07 23:06:56 Re: Indexes not used in DELETE