Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3789E9FA372
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:30:37 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 52228-06 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:30:19 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com
	[63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A4A9FA354
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:30:18 -0400 (AST)
Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com
	([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ;
	Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:30:16 +0000
Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com;
	10 Jan 2007 15:30:16 -0600
Subject: Re: Partitioning
From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
Cc: Jeremy Haile <jhaile@fastmail.fm>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
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>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1168464615.20602.211.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) 
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:30:16 -0600
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200701/156
X-Sequence-Number: 22757

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.