Re: Feature suggestions (long)

I was able to merge your ideas into the TODO because they are also items
that relate to other optimizations. Look for 'subtable' on the web TODO
to see the changes:

> * Allow a single index to index multiple tables (for inheritance and
subtables)
> * Improve the planner to use CHECK constraints to prune the plan (for
subtables)
> * Allow partitioning of table into multiple subtables

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 10:02:24AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:40:00AM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > > Anyway, the general trend seems to be against the idea so I may as well go
> > > think of something else :)
> >
> > I'm disappointed to hear that. Having no way to effectively partition
> > data is a real pain in pgsql, and your proposal would adress that. Yes,
> > you can build it yourself by creating the view and all the rules by
> > hand, but that has a lot of drawbacks:
>
> I agree, there is a lot of potential here. And I don't beleive it would be
> too much work as most of the infrastructure is already there. At this stage
> I'm just wondering if it will go on the TODO list. I propose that the
> following items be added:
>
> * Improve the planner to take CHECK constraints into account to prune the plan.
> * Allow a single index to index multiple tables (also for inherited PRIMARY KEYS)
> * Allow partitioning of table into multiple subtables
>
> The first two items would be useful in their own right. With them the final
> one would be straight forward. I'd be prepared to put some effort into this
> if there is some indication it would be accepted.
>
> > I don't know what the policies for patches are, but I'd hope that the
> > core team would consider adding this functionality, especially since a
> > first-round implimentation can be done entirely with rules (or so it
> > seems).
>
> Well, I think the policy is 'if you write the code you have a better chance
> to have it accepted' :) So, if it's likely to be accepted then we only need
> to find someone to code it. Given the other priorities currently I think
> waiting for the core team to write it would be futile (unless you can
> convince someone like IBM to give the core team money to write it).
>
> Right now I'd be happy if the anonymous CVS server would talk to me :)
>
> By the way, has anyone given thought to user-defined storage managers? Apart
> from allowing backward compatable table access, you could implement a simple
> version of partitioning that doesn't take advantage of planner tricks.
>
> Have a nice day,
> --
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> > "the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or
> > religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.
> > Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
> > - Samuel P. Huntington
-- End of PGP section, PGP failed!

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073