=?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postg...@cybertec.at>
writes:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is really premature, and anything you do along those lines now will
>> probably never get committed.
> well, why non-overlapping? the idea is to make append smart enough to
> take the sorted lists from below and merge them which will give sorted
> output as well.
Well, an extra merge step is going to change the cost comparisons quite
a bit; see Greg Starks' comments. But in any case, my point wasn't that
this is something we should never do; it was that it makes more sense to
wait till something has happened with explicit partitioning.
>> The project direction is that we are going to add some explicit
>> representation of partitioned tables.
> can you outline some ideas here and maybe point to some useful discussion
> here?
There's been boatloads of discussion of partitioning, and at least one
submitted patch, over the past year or so ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
