From: | "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Partitioning |
Date: | 2007-01-10 21:15:54 |
Message-ID: | 1168463754.13997.1168625791@webmail.messagingengine.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
You can do list partitioning in MySQL:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/partitioning-list.html
My comment was not meant as a criticism of PostgreSQL's current state -
I'm glad that it has partitioning. I'm simply wondering if there are
any plans of adopting a more user-friendly syntax in the future similar
to MySQL partitioning support. Having first-class citizen support of
partitions would also allow some nice administrative GUIs and views to
be built for managing them.
Jeremy Haile
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:31 -0600, "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> said:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:28:00PM -0500, Jeremy Haile wrote:
> > This seems so much more intuitive and simpler than what is required to
> > set it up in PostgreSQL. Does PostgreSQL's approach to table
> > partitioning have any advantage over MySQL? Is a "nicer" syntax planned
> > for Postgres?
>
> The focus was to get the base functionality working, and working
> correctly. Another consideration is that there's multiple ways to
> accomplish the partitioning; exposing the basic functionality without
> enforcing a given interface provides more flexibility (ie: it appears
> that you can't do list partitioning with MySQL, while you can with
> PostgreSQL).
> --
> Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-10 21:21:26 | Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-10 21:09:31 | Re: Partitioning |