From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Shane Ambler" <pgsql(at)sheeky(dot)biz>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Date: | 2007-03-12 15:13:51 |
Message-ID: | 200703121113.51752.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Saturday 10 March 2007 00:13, NikhilS wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > Given that Simon wants to do away with having the master table APPENDed
> >
> > in
> >
> > > the planning phase, this would be better.
> >
> > ISTM you're trading appending the master table for appending the DUMP
> > partition, which afaict would give you no gain.
>
> If there are entries in the master table, I think it would get appended for
> all queries regardless of whether we need to examine its contents or not.
> Segregating dump data into a partition will avoid that.
>
> I have seen examples in some other databases wherein a partition specifies
> a range of "someval - MAXINT" for instance, to catch such cases.
>
> That again means that the onus is on the partition creator most of the
> times..
*shrug*... we can do that now in pgsql
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-03-12 15:22:24 | Re: Updating large postgresql database with blobs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-12 14:36:50 | Re: Bitmapscan changes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-12 16:34:07 | Re: Bitmapscan changes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-12 14:36:50 | Re: Bitmapscan changes |