Re: Auto creation of Partitions

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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