Re: Partitioning

From: "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Partitioning
Date: 2007-01-11 14:02:01
Message-ID: 1168524121.14614.1168744439@webmail.messagingengine.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Well - whether or not MySQL's implementation of partitioning has some
deficiency, it sure is a lot easier to set up than PostgreSQL. And I
don't think there is any technical reason that setting up partitioning
on Postgres couldn't be very easy and still be robust.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:59:20 +0100, "Mikael Carneholm"
<Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com> said:
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> > >> Take a look at the set of partitioning functions I wrote shortly
> after
> > >> the 8.1 release:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.studenter.hb.se/~arch/files/part_functions.sql
> > >>
> > >> You could probably work something out using those functions (as-is,
> or
> > >> as inspiration) together with pgAgent
> > >> (http://www.pgadmin.org/docs/1.4/pgagent.html)
> > >>
> > >> /Mikael
> > >>
> > Those are some great functions.
> >
>
> Well, they're less than optimal in one aspect: they add one rule per
> partition, making them unsuitable for OLTP type applications (actually:
> any application where insert performance is crucial). Someone with time
> and/or energy could probably fix that, I guess...patches are welcome :)
>
> /Mikael
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adam Rich 2007-01-11 14:18:39 Re: Partitioning
Previous Message Mikael Carneholm 2007-01-11 12:59:20 Re: Partitioning