| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RangeType internal use |
| Date: | 2015-02-10 07:26:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20150210072625.GA3788028@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:37:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
> > all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
> > that is the kiss of death for a feature like this - it will be so
> > restricted as to eliminate 75% of the use cases.
>
> Well, that's debatable IMO (especially your claim that variable-size
> partitions would be needed by a majority of users).
I don't know about user wishes directly, though I do suspect fixed partition
stride would cover more than 25% of uses cases. I do know that SQL Server,
Oracle and MySQL have variable-stride range partitioning, and none of them
have fixed-stride range partitioning. So, like Heikki and Robert, I would bet
on variable-stride range partitioning.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Syed, Rahila | 2015-02-10 07:45:54 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-02-10 07:16:24 | Re: pgbench -f and vacuum |