Re: On partitioning

On 12/8/14, 1:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Besides, I haven't really seen anyone propose something that sounds
> like a credible alternative. If we could make partition objects
> things that the storage layer needs to know about but the query
> planner doesn't need to understand, that'd be maybe worth considering.
> But I don't see any way that that's remotely feasible. There are lots
> of places that we assume that a heap consists of blocks number 0 up
> through N: CTID pointers, index-to-heap pointers, nodeSeqScan, bits
> and pieces of the way index vacuuming is handled, which in turn bleeds
> into Hot Standby. You can't just decide that now block numbers are
> going to be replaced by some more complex structure, or even that
> they're now going to be nonlinear, without breaking a huge amount of
> stuff.

Agreed, but it's possible to keep a block/CTID interface while doing something different on the disk.

If you think about it, partitioning is really a hack anyway. It clutters up your logical set implementation with a bunch of physical details. What most people really want when they implement partitioning is simply data locality.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com