Paolo Magnoli wrote:
> Hi, I seem to recall that in Oracle you load into specific partitions
> without specifically naming them in insert statements (in other words you
> insert into table, the engine redirects data to the corrisponding
> partition),
This is correct
--
__
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:30 +0200, Paolo Magnoli wrote:
> It would be good to have an insert behaviour similar to Oracle by default.
OK, thanks.
> Also I see that the original table is always scanned, partition exclusion
> happens only on the derived tables, is this correct?
Yes, though if you
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] conto di Simon Riggs
> Inviato: venerdì 23 settembre 2005 11.51
> A: Jim C. Nasby
> Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Oggetto: Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1
>
>
> On Thu, 20
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 14:37 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the
> > > > C
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the
> > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but
> > > not quite well enough to make a
Word "basic" added.
---
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > On reflection, the only changes I suggest are:
> >
> > 1) the phrase "This allows for a type of table partitioning" have the
> > word "basic" inserted within it to bec
On reflection, the only changes I suggest are:
1) the phrase "This allows for a type of table partitioning" have the
word "basic" inserted within it to become: "This allows for a basic type
of table partitioning"
How about just: Initial support for table partitioning. Yes it is
non-committal
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the
> > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the
> > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but
> > not quite well enough to make a song and dance about yet?
>
On K, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the
> > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but
> > not quite well enough to make a song and dance about yet?
>
>
On K, 2005-09-21 at 18:10 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Table Partitioning is in 8.1
>
> I've just read Peter Eisentraut's presentation to the Dutch gov (very
> good BTW). On the last page I read that Table Partitioning is a future
> for PostgreSQLwhich is strange because Constraint Exclusion is
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the
> Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but
> not quite well enough to make a song and dance about yet?
I hardly think that the existing constraint-exclusion code i
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 06:10:15PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Table Partitioning is in 8.1
>
> I've just read Peter Eisentraut's presentation to the Dutch gov (very
> good BTW). On the last page I read that Table Partitioning is a future
> for PostgreSQLwhich is strange because Constraint Exc
Table Partitioning is in 8.1
I've just read Peter Eisentraut's presentation to the Dutch gov (very
good BTW). On the last page I read that Table Partitioning is a future
for PostgreSQLwhich is strange because Constraint Exclusion is an
8.1 feature.
I've had five other people ask about it too
14 matches
Mail list logo
