Re: partitioning question 1 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: partitioning question 1
Date
Msg-id 1288291814.22359.31.camel@jd-desktop
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: partitioning question 1  (Ben <midfield@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: partitioning question 1
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 11:44 -0700, Ben wrote:

> > Yes the constraints have to be static. Not sure about the operator
> > question honestly.
>
> this seems to severely restrict their usefulness -- our queries are data warehouse analytical -type  queries, so the
constraintsare usually data-driven (come from joining against other tables.) 

Well it does and it doesn't. Keep in mind that the constraint can be:

date >= '2010-10-01" and date <= '2010-10-31'

What it can't be is something that contains date_part() or extract() (as
an example)

>
> >> is my intuition completely off on this?
> >
> > You may actually want to look into expression indexes, not clustered
> > ones.

Take a look at the docs:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/indexes-expressional.html

It "could" be considered partitioning without breaking up the table,
just the indexes.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Ben
Date:
Subject: Re: partitioning question 1
Next
From: Ben
Date:
Subject: Re: partitioning question 1