Re: Partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jeremy Haile
Subject Re: Partitioning
Date
Msg-id 1168463754.13997.1168625791@webmail.messagingengine.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioning  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>)
Responses Re: Partitioning  (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>)
List pgsql-performance
You can do list partitioning in MySQL:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/partitioning-list.html

My comment was not meant as a criticism of PostgreSQL's current state -
I'm glad that it has partitioning.  I'm simply wondering if there are
any plans of adopting a more user-friendly syntax in the future similar
to MySQL partitioning support.  Having first-class citizen support of
partitions would also allow some nice administrative GUIs and views to
be built for managing them.

Jeremy Haile


On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:31 -0600, "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net> said:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:28:00PM -0500, Jeremy Haile wrote:
> > This seems so much more intuitive and simpler than what is required to
> > set it up in PostgreSQL.  Does PostgreSQL's approach to table
> > partitioning have any advantage over MySQL?  Is a "nicer" syntax planned
> > for Postgres?
>
> The focus was to get the base functionality working, and working
> correctly. Another consideration is that there's multiple ways to
> accomplish the partitioning; exposing the basic functionality without
> enforcing a given interface provides more flexibility (ie: it appears
> that you can't do list partitioning with MySQL, while you can with
> PostgreSQL).
> --
> Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
> EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning
Next
From: "Steven Flatt"
Date:
Subject: Re: table partioning performance