From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ben <midfield(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: partitioning question 1 |
Date: | 2010-10-28 18:50:14 |
Message-ID: | 1288291814.22359.31.camel@jd-desktop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 11:44 -0700, Ben wrote:
> > Yes the constraints have to be static. Not sure about the operator
> > question honestly.
>
> this seems to severely restrict their usefulness -- our queries are data warehouse analytical -type queries, so the constraints are usually data-driven (come from joining against other tables.)
Well it does and it doesn't. Keep in mind that the constraint can be:
date >= '2010-10-01" and date <= '2010-10-31'
What it can't be is something that contains date_part() or extract() (as
an example)
>
> >> is my intuition completely off on this?
> >
> > You may actually want to look into expression indexes, not clustered
> > ones.
Take a look at the docs:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/indexes-expressional.html
It "could" be considered partitioning without breaking up the table,
just the indexes.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ben | 2010-10-28 19:25:16 | Re: partitioning question 1 |
Previous Message | Ben | 2010-10-28 18:44:41 | Re: partitioning question 1 |