Re: Partitioning

From: "Josh Tolley" <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Julio Cesar Sánchez González <knowhow(at)sistemasyconectividad(dot)com(dot)mx>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Partitioning
Date: 2007-08-18 15:33:19
Message-ID: e7e0a2570708180833q2bf2fbfbxd608a95a5333861f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 8/18/07, Julio Cesar Sánchez González
<knowhow(at)sistemasyconectividad(dot)com(dot)mx> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> It's natural what master table in the partitioning table contain data
> (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/ddl-partitioning.html) ?
> or to be empty.

I'm no partitioning expert, but I would say most of the time the
parent table is supposed to be empty. That said, partitioning schemes
need to be developed based on what data you have and what exactly
you're trying to do. If you're using the common example of keeping a
bunch of historical data where partitions represent a distinct chunk
of time (for instance, one partition for every month of data) you
probably want to keep the parent table empty. Every row has a date,
and so there's a child table for each row naturally, so it doesn't
make sense to put anything in the parent tables. But I'm sure someone
can come up with a scheme where having data in the parent is also
useful.

- Josh

In response to

  • Partitioning at 2007-08-18 08:09:17 from Julio Cesar Sánchez González

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Tolley 2007-08-18 15:42:18 Re: Writing most code in Stored Procedures
Previous Message Ron Mayer 2007-08-18 15:00:32 Re: Interpreting statistics collector output