From: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: "Iain" <iain@mst.co.jp>, "Joe Conway" <mail@joeconway.com>,
	"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:39:10 +0100
Message-ID: <NOEFLCFHBPDAFHEIPGBOMEKJCEAA.simon@2ndquadrant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <00fb01c49bcc$c08dd210$7201a8c0@mst1x5r347kymb>
Importance: Normal

> Iain
> Joe's example wasn't excluding partions, as he didn't use a
> predicated UNION
> ALL view to select from. His queries use an indexed column that allow the
> various partitions to be probed at low cost, and he was satisfied
> wth that.

Agreed - very very interesting design though.

> My point in my previous post was that you could still do all that that if
> you wanted to, by building the predicated view with UNION ALL of
> each of the
> child tables.
>

AFAICS of all the designs proposed there is still only one design *using
current PostgreSQL* that allows partitions to be excluded from queries as a
way of speeding up queries against very large tables: UNION ALL with
appended constants.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs