| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | yangjie <yangjie(at)highgo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hash partitioning based on v10Beta2 |
| Date: | 2017-08-29 02:59:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY=jwf6=1gS+t-aCAzSLSmOr-SGq0qc3ORb-O0J1CoBCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:44 PM, yangjie <yangjie(at)highgo(dot)com> wrote:
> When the number of partitions and the data are more, adding new partitions,
> there will be some efficiency problems.
> I don't know how the solution you're talking about is how to implement a
> hash partition?
I am having difficulty understanding this. There was discussion on
the other thread of how splitting partitions could be done reasonably
efficiently with the proposed design; of course, it's never going to
be super-cheap.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-29 03:02:35 | Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
| Previous Message | yangjie | 2017-08-29 02:44:51 | Re: hash partitioning based on v10Beta2 |