Re: On Scalability
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: On Scalability |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1286487779.2304.372.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: On Scalability (Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo.romano@notorand.it>) |
Ответы |
Re: On Scalability
Re: On Scalability |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:10 +0200, Vincenzo Romano wrote: > Making these things sub-linear (whether not O(log n) or even O(1) ), > provided that there's way to, would make this RDBMS more appealing > to enterprises. > I mean also partial indexes (as an alternative to table partitioning). > Being able to effectively cope with "a dozen child tables or so" it's more > like an amateur feature. > If you really need partitioning (or just hierarchical stuff) I think you'll need > for quite more than a dozen items. > If you partition by just weeks, you'll need 50+ a year. > > Is there any precise direction to where look into the code for it? > > Is there a way to put this into a wish list? It's already on the wish list ("TODO") and has been for many years. We've mostly lacked somebody with the experience and time/funding to complete that implementation work. I figure I'll be doing it for 9.2 now; it may be difficult to do this for next release. Theoretically, this can be O(n.log n) for range partitioning and O(1) for exact value partitioning, though the latter isn't a frequent use case. Your conclusion that the current partitioning only works with a dozen or so items doesn't match the experience of current users however. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: