From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
Cc: Jeremy Haile <jhaile@fastmail.fm>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:30:16 -0600
Message-ID: <1168464615.20602.211.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070110210931.GY12217@nasby.net>
References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B82CD0A@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com>
<20070110202006.GU12217@nasby.net>
<1168460880.7578.1168617399@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<20070110210931.GY12217@nasby.net>
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 15:09, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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).
And I don't think the mysql partition supports tablespaces either.
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: smarlowe@g2switchworks.com, jim@nasby.net, jhaile@fastmail.fm
Subject: Re: Partitioning
In-Reply-To: <1168464615.20602.211.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox