From: Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Jeremy Haile <jhaile@fastmail.fm>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:31 -0600
Message-ID: <20070110210931.GY12217@nasby.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1168460880.7578.1168617399@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B82CD0A@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com>
<20070110202006.GU12217@nasby.net>
<1168460880.7578.1168617399@webmail.messagingengine.com>
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)
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: jim@nasby.net, jhaile@fastmail.fm
Subject: Re: Partitioning
In-Reply-To: <20070110210931.GY12217@nasby.net>
* 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