Message-ID: <5463EDE4.20902@BlueTreble.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:31:48 -0600
From: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Andres Freund
 <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce
 Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: On partitioning
References: <20140829155607.GF7705@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20141013192755.GC21267@momjian.us>
	<20141013193838.GZ7043@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20141013194317.GF21267@momjian.us>
	<010801cff1ba$f3f16b90$dbd442b0$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<20141027092933.GU1791@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20141027114421.GA31497@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<01b001cff270$d470b990$7d522cb0$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<20141028100629.GE2639@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<CA+TgmoaHPXfStSk2QERkWkWPnc63HRDgn=+9Nwt+HTd-=dUv+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<053501cffa30$ecdf8700$c69e9500$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<CA+TgmobN+DT_=hj3NkXZgSv157-W24YaZ50oFdRbhS493covzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<066501cffd52$3d919390$b8b4bab0$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<CA+TgmoZqndQQQY1U0OBxUOJy1RE_MAawJErghNB7RM8MPgCYDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<30799.1415830015@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYHjRaHj9_AV55HKAL-eDoMjCw=535794ToqC0CDVbQhg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYHjRaHj9_AV55HKAL-eDoMjCw=535794ToqC0CDVbQhg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: bluetreble.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 11/12/14, 5:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Maybe as anyarray, but I think pg_node_tree
>>> >>might even be better.  That can also represent data of some arbitrary
>>> >>type, but it doesn't enforce that everything is uniform.
>> >
>> >Of course, the more general you make it, the more likely that it'll be
>> >impossible to optimize well.
> The point for me is just that range and list partitioning probably
> need different structure, and hash partitioning, if we want to support
> that, needs something else again.  Range partitioning needs an array
> of partition boundaries and an array of child OIDs.  List partitioning
> needs an array of specific values and a child table OID for each.
> Hash partitioning needs something probably quite different.  We might
> be able to do it as a pair of arrays - one of type anyarray and one of
> type OID - and meet all needs that way.

Another issue is I don't know that we could support multi-key partitions with something like an anyarray. Perhaps that's OK as a first pass, but I expect it'll be one of the next things folks ask for.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers