Simon Riggs wrote:
> Happy New Year, everybody.
>
> This proposal follows on from previous thinking about partitioning,
> where I've taken up Andrew Sullivan's suggestion to re-examine the
> current partitioning concept of using tables as partitions. So I've come
> up with an alternative concept to allow us to discuss the particular
> merits of each. ISTM that this new proposal has considerable potential.
I've been lurking and reading a huge number of threads on partitioning.
I see that postgresql is likely to give the user lots of knobs to define
partitions very flexibly, which is a good thing for things like sales
region reports etc.
All that to say, I hope some form of this very automatic tunning makes
it in. This automatic option would provide a benefit (not perfect but
improved) for a significant set of use cases. Even better, it is trivial
to setup, though I would want a knob for the underlying partition sizes,
1GB feels a bit too big for some situations.
Even expensive databases have found I think that there is a cost to
administrative complexity. In many cases someone may not be ready to go
down the declarative path, but be open to allowing the system take some
optimizing approaches. What I especially like is the ability to later
mark things read only. Perhaps a consultant who checks in on things
monthly might mark partitions in that form.
Good luck though with it all, great to see this.
- August
