agora inbox for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: On partitioning
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 16:05:39 -0600
Message-ID: <548620B3.4030205@BlueTreble.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZDyk45-iR5m9QVZBayqwLsQ22DeGrqz5d+a4pZsmkRBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140829155607.GF7705@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
<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$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<CA+TgmoZqndQQQY1U0OBxUOJy1RE_MAawJErghNB7RM8MPgCYDg@mail.gmail.com>
<032601d00471$ea6f4280$bf4dc780$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<CA+TgmoZ-HJOTPfZcnPOh27881xn4N1QGtY7J4nG+v6tV9cJjNw@mail.gmail.com>
<04da01d00917$2dde1010$899a3030$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<CA+TgmoaU+0EN-XsAT1O+64xrENNJiKPgem+Q1hWzz7a=1MYrDA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1JfxZtMaYwDp+hWec+tHDupr5rq3h30CfysO+QVisNBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoZ3Mtdh_Aw+ujHZn7Q+5GnpxhBKz3Qu3G=8+wdJ1cdiCA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1Kz-fSXmo3zORB2UVkepEfLfyoUGQ2t0Q7jPjYs7wwvNg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoZDyk45-iR5m9QVZBayqwLsQ22DeGrqz5d+a4pZsmkRBw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 12/8/14, 1:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Besides, I haven't really seen anyone propose something that sounds
> like a credible alternative. If we could make partition objects
> things that the storage layer needs to know about but the query
> planner doesn't need to understand, that'd be maybe worth considering.
> But I don't see any way that that's remotely feasible. There are lots
> of places that we assume that a heap consists of blocks number 0 up
> through N: CTID pointers, index-to-heap pointers, nodeSeqScan, bits
> and pieces of the way index vacuuming is handled, which in turn bleeds
> into Hot Standby. You can't just decide that now block numbers are
> going to be replaced by some more complex structure, or even that
> they're now going to be nonlinear, without breaking a huge amount of
> stuff.
Agreed, but it's possible to keep a block/CTID interface while doing something different on the disk.
If you think about it, partitioning is really a hack anyway. It clutters up your logical set implementation with a bunch of physical details. What most people really want when they implement partitioning is simply data locality.
--
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
view thread (170+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, andres@2ndquadrant.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us
Subject: Re: On partitioning
In-Reply-To: <548620B3.4030205@BlueTreble.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox