From: alexandre - aldeia digital <adaldeia@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning by status?
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:22:51 -0200
Message-ID: <4F1D976B.4040108@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F108094.4070401@agliodbs.com>
References: <CANPAkgt9mGoF7SyA_n7jX3t6siLGPyA=d1tR2bPwKiAex3bDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
<4F0F2564.6030702@agliodbs.com>
<4F100AF1.1020808@gmail.com>
<4F108094.4070401@agliodbs.com>
Em 13-01-2012 17:05, Josh Berkus escreveu:
> 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.
>
I'm sorry hear this. Table partitioning is a very good helper in a large
number of performance issues. If there was a bounty to help anyone to
make this, I would be a happy contributor. :)
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: adaldeia@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Partitioning by status?
In-Reply-To: <4F1D976B.4040108@gmail.com>
* 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