Message-Id: <1168463754.13997.1168625791@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile@fastmail.fm>
To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B82CD0A@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com>
	<20070110202006.GU12217@nasby.net>
	<1168460880.7578.1168617399@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<20070110210931.GY12217@nasby.net>
Subject: Re: Partitioning
In-Reply-To: <20070110210931.GY12217@nasby.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:15:54 -0500

You can do list partitioning in MySQL:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/partitioning-list.html

My comment was not meant as a criticism of PostgreSQL's current state -
I'm glad that it has partitioning.  I'm simply wondering if there are
any plans of adopting a more user-friendly syntax in the future similar
to MySQL partitioning support.  Having first-class citizen support of
partitions would also allow some nice administrative GUIs and views to
be built for managing them.  

Jeremy Haile


On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:31 -0600, "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net> said:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:28:00PM -0500, Jeremy Haile wrote:
> > This seems so much more intuitive and simpler than what is required to
> > set it up in PostgreSQL.  Does PostgreSQL's approach to table
> > partitioning have any advantage over MySQL?  Is a "nicer" syntax planned
> > for Postgres?
> 
> The focus was to get the base functionality working, and working
> correctly. Another consideration is that there's multiple ways to
> accomplish the partitioning; exposing the basic functionality without
> enforcing a given interface provides more flexibility (ie: it appears
> that you can't do list partitioning with MySQL, while you can with
> PostgreSQL).
> -- 
> Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
> EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)