Re: Named vs Unnamed Partitions

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:52:09 +0100
Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
te restrictions.
> >
> > Hmm, well if you found declaring the partitions a problem with
> > constraint exclusion it's not going to be any easier using other
> > declarative approaches.
>
> I disagree (although it is unreasonable for me to do so without
> posting syntax -- it's coming). Proper grammar for partition support
> means running a single DDL command. The user does not have to line up
> table generation with rules (or triggers) and check constraints. As
> such, I believe it to be much much easier.

+1 ....

http://www.databasedesign-resource.com/oracle-partitions.html

I am not saying I like Oracle's syntax (I don't) but:

http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/mysql_5.1_partitioning_with_dates.html

and:

http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3456991

Or worlds above us in usability.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHhVoAATb/zqfZUUQRAp9IAJ4+LQ+zHOgD1wpblH/q1OwF4+1W3QCdFaLU
hlb5uRrbK7Z+oRCLMi+SNJs=
=cmIs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----