From: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: speedup COPY TO for partitioned table. |
Date: | 2025-04-10 12:37:16 |
Message-ID: | CACJufxH3mwsVyfhLpXaycC-HYnS5otNop08e15vmhM-jDBOsKw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 4:25 PM Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 07:45, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > hi.
> >
> > rebase and simplify regress tests.
>
> HI!
> You used CREATE TABLE PARTITION OF syntax for the second level of
> partitioning scheme, but not for the first level. Is there any reason?
>
hi.
I want the partitioned table and partition column position to be different.
Here, the partitioned table column order is "(id int,val int) ",
but the actual partition column order is "(val int, id int)".
> Also about column names. how about
>
> +CREATE TABLE pp (year int, day int) PARTITION BY RANGE (year);
> +CREATE TABLE pp_1 (year int, day int) PARTITION BY RANGE (day);
> +CREATE TABLE pp_2 (year int, day int) PARTITION BY RANGE (day);
>
> ??
I think the current test example is fine.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-04-10 12:37:36 | Re: Consistently use macro HeapTupleIsValid to check the validity of tuples in tablecmds.c |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-04-10 12:25:24 | Re: Consistently use macro HeapTupleIsValid to check the validity of tuples in tablecmds.c |