2010/5/1 Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com>: > Vincenzo Romano wrote: >> >> I argued that O(n) stuff will keep it away from "enterprise grade" >> applications. >> I've been told earlier that "It is fine for dozens of child tables, >> but not thousands; >> it does need improvement." >> This is not enterprise grade > > Enterprise grade doesn't mean anything. Partitioning designs that require > thousands of child tables to work right are fundamentally misdesigned > anyway, so there is no reason for any of the contributors to the project to > work on improving support for them. There are far too many obvious > improvements that could be made to PostgreSQL, ones that will benefit vastly > more people, to divert resources toward something you shouldn't be dong > anyway like that.
While I can agree that "Enterprise grade" is a buzzword, it does mean something: "very large amount of data" among other. There's no "fundamentally good design", but only a design which takes limitations and constraints into account. I just say that sublinear algorithms allow better handling for growing numbers of objects. -- Vincenzo Romano NotOrAnd Information Technologies cel. +39 339 8083886 | gtalk. vincenzo.rom...@notorand.it fix. +39 0823 454163 | skype. notorand.it fax. +39 02 700506964 | msn. notorand.it NON QVIETIS MARIBVS NAVTA PERITVS -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
