On Oct 3, 4:00 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("paul rivers") wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Goboxe
> > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 11:26 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL]Partitionedtable li
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Goboxe
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 11:26 AM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Partitioned table limitation
>
> On Oct 2, 1
On Oct 2, 1:38 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("paul rivers") wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Goboxe
> > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:18 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [GENERAL] Partitioned table limit
>
> I've played around with as many as 1,000 child tables. By then, the
> planning time becomes noticeably longer than for a single table, but
> the response time is still so much faster that it's worth it. Note
> I'm talking only a fraction of a second planning time, even at 1,000
> tables.
>
>
On 10/1/07, Goboxe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are there any limitations on number of child tables that can be use
> in
> partitioned table?
>
>
> I am currently having weekly partitioned tables (using partitioned
> view in SQL Server) that I kept for 2 years.
> In total, there will be 52
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Goboxe
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:18 AM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: [GENERAL] Partitioned table limitation
>
> Hi,
>
> Are there any limitations on number of c
