| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feature suggestions (long) |
| Date: | 2003-05-18 05:02:39 |
| Message-ID: | 3EC713EF.9000206@paradise.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
>On Sat, 17 May 2003, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>I'm going suggest a feature like what Oracle calls "partitions" and later on
>>>>something with indexes. The idea is to generate some discussion to see if
>>>>they are worthy of being added to the TODO list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why bother?
>>>
>>>
>>Maybe one can put different partitions in different tablespaces?
>>
>>
>
>One can. The tablespace a partition is in can even be
>offline if Oracle can prove that a query doesn't require
>that partition.
>
>
Being able to "segment" tables for admin purposes (like archiving) might
be beneficial.
I guess this could be orthogonal to clustering or partitioning schemes
that mininize table/index access for queries.
(Oracle has sort of rolled these ideas together with their partitioning)
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2003-05-18 06:21:55 | Re: Feature suggestions (long) |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2003-05-18 01:56:29 | Re: Feature suggestions (long) |