Re: Path question

On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> For what it's worth I disagree with Tom. I think this is a situation
> where we need *both* types of solution. Ideally we will be able to use
> a plain Append node for cases where we know the relative ordering of
> the data in different partitions, but there will always be cases where
> the structured partition data doesn't actually match up with the
> ordering requested and we'll need to fall back to a merge-append node.

I agree. Explicit partitioning may open up some additional optimization possibilities in certain cases, but Merge Append is more general and extremely valuable in its own right.

...Robert