On 09/01/2015 02:58 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 01/09/15 21:41, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I'm thinking that partitioning and sharding are two different things: Partitioning is about reducing the amount of table data accessed and also perhaps easing admin activities (archiving/removing old stuff etc). Sharding is a about parallelism and redundancy...copies of stuff in different places and concurrent access by virtue of it being on different nodes!
In our world, they are complimentary. Consider partitioning that uses FDW tables with proper plan push down etc....
Now *maybe* FDW is a good way to approach this, but really would be nice to see a more rigorous analysis (I note that like XC and XL, Greenplum looked at the existing mechanisms around at the time and ended up writing their own). Now I'm aware that things have moved on - but I think there needs to be a proper discussion about design and what we think distributed data/sharding etc should provide *before* grabbing hold of FDW as *the answer*!
Agreed. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
