I had not seen this before, thanks!
I seems from the discussion on this that it does not work with spatial
data. I had the idea that it would be cool if each table kept its
current bbox for the table and that if you were doing a query that it
would only look at the tables with bboxes that over
* Paul Ramsey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Look at "constraint exclusion" as a strategy...
Yes, certainly this approach will be taking advantage of constraint
exclusion.
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/ddl-partitioning.html
>
> It actually *does* use inheritance, but it does fan
Look at "constraint exclusion" as a strategy...
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/ddl-partitioning.html
It actually *does* use inheritance, but it does fancy query re-writes too.
P.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen,
>
>
> * Stephe
Stephen,
* Stephen Woodbridge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Have look into using inherited tables? This would allow you to have a
> nation view or a state view of the county data. View being used in the
> literal not postgres in this case.
Honestly, I havn't. I'm really not all that keen on i
Stephen,
Changing the subject on this thread.
Have look into using inherited tables? This would allow you to have a
nation view or a state view of the county data. View being used in the
literal not postgres in this case.
create table us_tiger.blocks ;
create table ST_tiger.blocks inher
