Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD kirjutas E, 24.11.2003 kell 13:16:
> Main needs partitioning is useful for:
> - partition elimination for queries (e.g. seq scans only scan relevant partitions)
> - deleting/detaching huge parts of a table in seconds
> - attaching huge parts to a table in seconds (that may
Main needs partitioning is useful for:
- partition elimination for queries (e.g. seq scans only scan relevant partitions)
- deleting/detaching huge parts of a table in seconds
- attaching huge parts to a table in seconds (that may have been loaded with
a fast loading utility (e.g. loading
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 11:54:45AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > In a nutshell, the features on my short list are all about heap
> > management (e.g. partitioning). This is really important when databases
> > reach a certain size, but something for which Postgres has almost no
> > support.
>
>
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm a little unclear, personally, about what can be accomplished through table
> partitioning that we can't currently do through partial indexes and inherited
> tables, especially after Gavin finishes his tablespaces patch (btw, Gavin
> could use spons
James,
> I'm not sure what Oracle has to do with any of this. If I wanted to use
> Oracle, I would buy Oracle.
Good. Your original post, which appeared to propose carbon-copying a number
of features from Oracle -- I didn't necessarily read it that way, but several
other people did, including
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> It should be noted that "because Oracle does it that way" is a
> guaranteed nonstarter as a rationale for any Postgres feature proposal.
A method of doing something is not a "feature"; making something
possible that couldn't be done before is a "feat
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I think the best way is simply to make a post on -hackers
> with a description of what you want to accomplish with a call for
> estimates and proposals. ...
> I say a description of what you want to accomplish because certain
> features are not a
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 14:33, James Rogers wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Is there any pre-existing protocol for a company to pay for specific
> features to be added to PostgreSQL?
There are several people who do this type of work (Neil, Joe, David, the
folks are Command Prompt Inc., etc.).
Personally, I
Mr. Rogers,
> Is there any pre-existing protocol for a company to pay for specific
> features to be added to PostgreSQL?
> Are other people/companies already doing this, either officially or
> unofficially, and what is the general protocol for going about doing
> this?
Other companies are doing
