Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Date
Msg-id 603c8f070905071920i47a6fb35r73876d28d39c9155@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (david@lang.hm)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Agreed. Perhaps I should say then that the syntax needs to express the
> requirements of the planner/executor behaviour, rather than being the
> main aspect of the feature, as some have suggested.

Agreed.

> Hopefully, notions of partitioning won't be directly tied to chunking of
> data for parallel query access. Most queries access recent data and
> hence only a single partition (or stripe), so partitioning and
> parallelism and frequently exactly orthogonal.

Yes, I think those things are unrelated.

...Robert

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Indexes not used in DELETE
Next
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?