X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F789DCA72 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:59:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17534-05 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:59:34 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53959DC9C8 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:59:30 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 14A8856427; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 03:59:33 -0600 (CST) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 03:59:32 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 03:59:32 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Antoine Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: partitioning Message-ID: <20060321095931.GY15742@pervasive.com> References: <92d3a4950603190431p43fd399aq@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <92d3a4950603190431p43fd399aq@mail.gmail.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:melser.anton@gmail.com::v5V0vCvMmUWKJaq7:000000000000000 0000000000000000000000001i/A X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::DuHNK24esbD8rV3W:00000 0000000000000000000000008VAz X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.108 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108] X-Spam-Score: 0.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/369 X-Sequence-Number: 17806 On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:31:42PM +0100, Antoine wrote: > Hi, > Is there any work on the cards for implementing other partitioning > strategies? I see mysql 5.1 will have support for hashes and stuff but > didn't see anything in the todos for postgres. You'd have to provide a pretty convincing argument for providing hash partitioning I think. I can't really think of any real-world scenarios where it's better than other forms. In any case, the next logical step on the partitioning front is to add some 'syntactic sugar' to make it easier for people to work with partitions. I seem to remember some discussion about that, but I don't recall where it lead to. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461