Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F222E0073;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:23:06 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 79502-01; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:23:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: from oxford.xeocode.com (unknown [87.127.95.196])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569892E367E;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:23:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oxford.xeocode.com)
	by oxford.xeocode.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
	id 1IxpuS-0001Pn-05; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:22:56 +0000
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,  "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at>,
	"NikhilS" <nikkhils@gmail.com>,  "David Fetter" <david@fetter.org>,
	"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>,
	"PostgreSQL Docs" <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	"PostgreSQL Patches" <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules
In-Reply-To: <20071129095233.67f2b913@commandprompt.com> (Joshua D. Drake's
	message of "Thu\, 29 Nov 2007 09\:52\:33 -0800")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)
X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+mail01.enterprisedb.com:INBOX.patches" 3243)
References: <20071128202615.GG24146@fetter.org>
	<21686.1196283184@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<36e682920711281858x9a37039sa104036bf025de41@mail.gmail.com>
	<20071129031702.GU24146@fetter.org> <2854.1196315753@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20071128224154.06f950c9@commandprompt.com>
	<d3c4af540711290705q35ea51cdkfaa94b0c07a1aecc@mail.gmail.com>
	<474EDAE2.3010705@gmx.at> <474EE25E.3080304@commandprompt.com>
	<14455.1196353045@sss.pgh.pa.us> <474EE992.2050209@commandprompt.com>
	<87zlwxj7xu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<20071129091359.206fd8f2@commandprompt.com>
	<87ve7lj6y8.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<20071129095233.67f2b913@commandprompt.com>
From: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Organization: EnterpriseDB
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:22:55 +0000
Message-ID: <87d4tser8g.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200711/300
X-Sequence-Number: 4541


"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

> If you have lots of data it doesn't mean you are modifying lots of
> data. 

It sure can. How do you modify lots of data if you *don't* have lots data in
the first place? Certainly it doesn't mean you necessarily are, some databases
are OLTP which do no large updates. But data warehouses with oodles of data
also often have to do large updates or deletions.

> I don't think anyone here (good lord I hope not) would say that firing
> a trigger over 500k rows is fast. Instead you should likely just work the data
> outside the partition and then move it directly into the target
> partition.

Well you don't even have to do that. You can issue the updates directly
against the partitions. In fact, that's precisely what the rules effectively
do... Rules rewrite the query to be a query directly against the partitions.

Come to think of it I think there actually is a correct way to use rules which
wouldn't suffer from the problems that have come up. Instead of putting a
WHERE clause on the rule just expand deletes and updates to expand to deletes
and updates against *all* partitions. Then let constraint_exclusion kick in to
narrow down which partitions should actually receive the updates and deletes.
I think triggers are the only solution for insert though.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!