| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jeremy Haile <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning |
| Date: | 2007-01-10 21:30:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1168464615.20602.211.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 15:09, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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).
And I don't think the mysql partition supports tablespaces either.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steven Flatt | 2007-01-10 21:39:06 | Re: table partioning performance |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-10 21:21:26 | Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum |