Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89509FA4A7 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:09:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90727-01 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:09:32 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BAF9FA35C for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:09:34 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id AA34A56440; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:33 -0600 (CST) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:31 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:31 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Jeremy Haile Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Partitioning Message-ID: <20070110210931.GY12217@nasby.net> References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B82CD0A@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com> <20070110202006.GU12217@nasby.net> <1168460880.7578.1168617399@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1168460880.7578.1168617399@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p10 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Hashcash: 1:20:070110:jhaile@fastmail.fm::pNFarz7qqKl6/PhU:0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000ZKr X-Hashcash: 1:20:070110:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::VA0+H6OV2wliNPHE:00000 00000000000000000000000039fe X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200701/154 X-Sequence-Number: 22755 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)