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