2010/5/1 John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>> Enterprise grade doesn't mean anything. Partitioning designs that require
>> thousands of child tables to work right are fundamentally misdesigned
>> anyway, so there is no reason for any of the contributors to the project to
>> work on improving support for them. There are far too many obvious
>> improvements that could be made to PostgreSQL, ones that will benefit vastly
>> more people, to divert resources toward something you shouldn't be dong
>> anyway like that.
>>
>
> my sql developer, who's been doing oracle for 15+ years, says postgres'
> partitioning is flawed from his perspective because if you have a prepared
> statement like..
>
> SELECT fields FROM partitioned_table WHERE primarykey = $1;
>
> it doesn't optimize this very well and ends up looking at all the sub-table
> indicies. ir you instead execute the statement
>
> SELECT fields FROM parritioned_table WHERE primarykey = constant;
>
> he says the planner will go straight to the correct partition.
>
> i haven't confirmed this for myself.
It has nothing to do with partitionning but how the planner works.
Even if the use case remain correct....
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
--
Cédric Villemain
