Tom Lane wrote:
"michael McMaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I intend on creating a view over a large number of tables (possibly > 1000).
Better rethink that plan ... PG's current partitioning support doesn't
scale that high, and filing bugs claiming it's a memory leak isn't
going to make it
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 00:37 +, michael McMaster wrote:
> I intend on creating a view over a large number of tables (possibly > 1000).
> Each table in the view has a CHECK constraint that partitions the data by a
> time range.
You may try using the inheritance mechanism rather than a UNION ALL
"michael McMaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I intend on creating a view over a large number of tables (possibly > 1000).
Better rethink that plan ... PG's current partitioning support doesn't
scale that high, and filing bugs claiming it's a memory leak isn't
going to make it do so.
