čt 22. 11. 2018 v 15:29 odesílatel Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz>
napsal:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:42:14PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Here my position is strong. \dP for me doesn't mean "tables or
> > indexes" - it means "partition tables with total relation size". I
> > don't see any sense to show tables and indexes in one report.
>
> Please let me disagree on that point. \dP, \dPt and \dPi are commands
> able to show information about respectively partitioned relations,
> partitioned tables and partitioned indexes, which is not something only
> related to the size of those partitions. Showing only the level of a
> relation in its hierarchy may be useful, but that's confusing for the
> user without knowing its direct parent or its top-most parent. For
> multiple levels, the direct parent without the number in the hierarchy
> seems enough to me. I may be of course wrong in designing those
> concepts.
>
There are open two points:
1. display hierarchy of partitioned structures.
2. what should be displayed by \dP command.
@1 I agree so this information can be interesting and useful. But I have a
problem with consistency of this report. When result is table, then I think
so we can introduce, and should to introduce some new special report for
command - maybe \dPh
that can show hiearchy of one partitioned table (the table name should be
required)
I think so can be much more readable to have special report like
\dPh parent_tab
parent_tab
-> direct partitions 24kB
-> child_30_40
-> direct partitions 16kB
This is some what i can read, and I see (very naturally) the hierarchy of
partitions and the relations between
I have not feel well when I see in one report numbers 40 and 16, I see much
more comfortable when I see 24 and 16, but for this I need a different
perspective
What do you think about it?
> --
> Michael
>
