Re: Declarative partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Corey Huinker
Subject Re: Declarative partitioning
Date
Msg-id CADkLM=eHdqDagQX631X=9jAi+c0i-fUJyv9xd3o5ExgyRzjRUw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Declarative partitioning  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

My experiences with Oracle's hash function were generally not good -
there's a reason many hash algorithms exist.  If/when we do hash
partitioning in Postgres I'd like to see the hash function be
user-definable.

+1

In my experience, hash partitioning had one use: When you had run out of ways to logically partition the data, AND you had two tables in a foreign key relationship, AND that relationship was the most common use-case for selecting the two tables. In which case, your one big join became 8 or 16 little ones, and all was well in the universe...

...until those little joins started to spill to disk, and now you need to repartition by 2x hashes, and that basically means a reload of your primary fact table, and a talk with a boss about why you painted yourself into a corner when you first did that.


 

Meanwhile, I think list and range are a good start.  I'd prefer to see
sub-partitioning before hash partitioning.

+1
 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Brownlee
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL for VAX on NetBSD/OpenBSD
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: deparsing utility commands