| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Functions |
| Date: | 2017-05-18 06:05:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAMp0ubc4bHhDt83THWi6WNUzHWVN=Wg4ybbXbMGN7EUq3p1gJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think the question is whether we are going to make a distinction between
> logical partitions (where the data division rule makes some sense to the
> user) and physical partitions (where it needn't). I think it might be
> perfectly reasonable for those to behave differently.
Agreed. To summarize my perspective:
* hash partitioning offers a nice way to divide the data for later
processing by parallel query
* range partitioning is good for partition elimination
(constraint_exclusion) and separating hot/cold data (e.g. partitioning
on date)
* both offer some maintenance benefits (e.g. reindex one partition at
a time), though range partitioning seems like it offers better
flexibility here in some cases
I lean toward separating the concepts, but Robert is making some
reasonable arguments and I could be convinced.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-05-18 06:19:48 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-05-18 05:59:46 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |