On 2/13/15 3:34 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:13:11PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/10/15 2:04 PM, David Fetter wrote:
Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
that is the kiss of death for a feature like this - it will be so
restricted as to eliminate 75% of the use cases.
Well, that's debatable IMO (especially your claim that variable-size
partitions would be needed by a majority of users).
It's ubiquitous.
Time range partition sets almost always have some sets with finite
range and at least one range with infinity in it: "current end" to
infinity, and somewhat less frequently in my experience, -infinity
to some arbitrary start.
We could instead handle that with a generic "this doesn't fit in any
other partition" capability. Presumably that would be easy if we're
building this on top of inheritance features.
If we exclude the issue of needing one or two oddball partitions for
+/- infinity, I expect that fixed sized partitions would actually
cover 80-90% of cases.
Is "partition the domain" really that big an ask?
]
Since this debate has been running for a few months, perhaps it is. I'd
rather see limited partitioning get in sooner and come back to handle
the less common cases (as long as we don't paint ourselves in a corner).
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
