From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yuri Levinsky <yuril(at)celltick(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hash partitioning. |
Date: | 2013-06-25 20:28:51 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpZedhHe1H8vnkBnyuiHiq1smWwAgO+xurg-U79p_VXtpA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> However, I find it hard to think that hash partitioning as such is very
> high on the to-do list. As was pointed out upthread, the main practical
> advantage of partitioning is *not* performance of routine queries, but
> improved bulk-data management such as the ability to do periodic
> housecleaning by dropping a partition. If your partitioning is on a
> hash, you've thrown away any such advantage, because there's no
> real-world meaning to the way the data's been split up. So I find range
> and list partitioning way more plausible.
It would be nice if range partitioning based on some user-defined
function was completely automatic, as in:
* You define a function that returns a partition name for a given input.
* You define a table to somehow be auto-partitioned on
your_function(some_column)
* The planner knows now it's some_column applied to your_function, so
it can do constraint exclusion checks (your_function would probably
need to be stable at least)
* If a returned partition is missing... what? (auto-create? that'd be nice)
It's pretty much what we have already, albeit easier to use. And,
perhaps constraint exclusion logic could be specialized for this case,
and made more robust.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-06-25 20:45:09 | Re: Optimizing pglz compressor |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-06-25 20:28:12 | Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses |