Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C56D1A496B7 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:21:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RlmS8-0007Bi-98 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:06:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062AB3F49AF for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:06:04 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-1.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-1.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LPbDFa39H2Kb for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:06:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC7D3F4AAB for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:06:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from Sidney-Stratton.local (70-36-197-35.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [70.36.197.35]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 888223F49AF for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:06:02 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4F108094.4070401@agliodbs.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:05:56 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111103 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Partitioning by status? References: <4F0F2564.6030702@agliodbs.com> <4F100AF1.1020808@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F100AF1.1020808@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201201/45 X-Sequence-Number: 46058 On 1/13/12 2:44 AM, alexandre - aldeia digital wrote: >> >> Also, (2) only really works if you're going to obsolesce (remove) >> archive records after a certain period of time. Otherwise the >> sub-partitioning hurts performance. >> > > Is there any moves to include the "easy" table partitioning in the 9.2 > version ? Nobody has been submitting patches. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com