Re: Declarative partitioning grammar
Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres@cybertec.at>
From: Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres@cybertec.at>
To: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>, 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: 2008-01-15T14:15:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> >> 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? > imagine a structure which is partitioned by day. if you keep data for 3 years (which is perfectly reasonable) you already have 1000 partitions. some applications produce so much data that splitting it into days is perfectly reasonable. if your get 30 GB a day making monthly tables is not too funny anymore ... just think of CREATE INDEX or VACUUM ... having so many tables is not funny but it can be the only reasonable choice. best regards, hans -- Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH PostgreSQL Solutions and Support Gröhrmühlgasse 26, 2700 Wiener Neustadt Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340 www.postgresql.at, www.cybertec.at