2010/5/1 John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Greg Smith wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > my sql developer, who's been doing oracle for 15+ years, says postgres' > partitioning is flawed from his perspective because if you have a prepared > statement like.. > > SELECT fields FROM partitioned_table WHERE primarykey = $1; > > it doesn't optimize this very well and ends up looking at all the sub-table > indicies. ir you instead execute the statement > > SELECT fields FROM parritioned_table WHERE primarykey = constant; > > he says the planner will go straight to the correct partition. > > i haven't confirmed this for myself. It has nothing to do with partitionning but how the planner works. Even if the use case remain correct.... > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Cédric Villemain -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
