Horton

Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>

View thread
From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Cc: Jeff Cohen <jcohen@greenplum.com>, Warren Turkal <turkal@google.com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>, Gavin Sherry <swm@alcove.com.au>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2008-01-15T13:38:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

Hannu Krosing wrote:
> I guess it would go to some "default" partition ?

Which doesn't have a name so far, which prevents from addressing that 
partition. Nor is it pretty well defined, it's just a rest.

> sure, but this can become really tedious for 1024 partitions,

Well, managing 1024 partitions manually is a tedious job, no matter what 
grammar you take: You'll have to deal with 1024 different partition names.

What do you need so many partitions for?

> not to
> mention hard for optimiser.

It's pretty much the same for the optimizer: a binary tree.  Granted, 
that binary tree should better be balanced by the RDBMS.

Regards

Markus