=?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postg...@cybertec.at> writes: > On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> This is really premature, and anything you do along those lines now will >> probably never get committed.
> well, why non-overlapping? the idea is to make append smart enough to > take the sorted lists from below and merge them which will give sorted > output as well. Well, an extra merge step is going to change the cost comparisons quite a bit; see Greg Starks' comments. But in any case, my point wasn't that this is something we should never do; it was that it makes more sense to wait till something has happened with explicit partitioning. >> The project direction is that we are going to add some explicit >> representation of partitioned tables. > can you outline some ideas here and maybe point to some useful discussion > here? There's been boatloads of discussion of partitioning, and at least one submitted patch, over the past year or so ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers