Re: smart or dumb partition?

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Bob Gobeille <bob(dot)gobeille(at)hp(dot)com>
Cc: PgSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: smart or dumb partition?
Date: 2009-08-07 23:44:36
Message-ID: 407d949e0908071644h7b33998flf9bab9b631c431ad@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Bob Gobeille<bob(dot)gobeille(at)hp(dot)com> wrote:
> I gather from rtfm that it is typical to set up partitions so that the
> "master" table has no records.  But from my understanding of partitions and
> doing some tests, I don't see any reason that has to be.  So I'm wondering
> if I'm missing some subtle (or not so subtle) point about partitions?

It's purely a convenience issue. Any child partition can be removed
later, The parent will be a pain if you ever want to remove it from
the partitioning structure.

--
greg
http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Baguette 2009-08-08 00:13:47 Adding ACL notion to existing tables
Previous Message Bob Gobeille 2009-08-07 23:27:42 smart or dumb partition?