On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:13:11PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/10/15 2:04 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> >>>> >Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
> >>>> >all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
> >>>> >that is the kiss of death for a feature like this - it will be so
> >>>> >restricted as to eliminate 75% of the use cases.
> >>>
> >>>Well, that's debatable IMO (especially your claim that variable-size
> >>>partitions would be needed by a majority of users).
> >It's ubiquitous.
> >
> >Time range partition sets almost always have some sets with finite
> >range and at least one range with infinity in it: "current end" to
> >infinity, and somewhat less frequently in my experience, -infinity
> >to some arbitrary start.
>
> We could instead handle that with a generic "this doesn't fit in any
> other partition" capability. Presumably that would be easy if we're
> building this on top of inheritance features.
>
> If we exclude the issue of needing one or two oddball partitions for
> +/- infinity, I expect that fixed sized partitions would actually
> cover 80-90% of cases.
Is "partition the domain" really that big an ask?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
