Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: > Okay, let me back up a little and think about your suggestion which I do > not seem to understand very well - it raises a few questions for me: > does this mean a partitioning criteria is associated with parent > (partitioned table) rather than each individual partition?
Absolutely. Anything else is not scalable; it's just another flavor of the inheritance + CHECK constraint mechanism. The entire point of doing a new partitioning design IMO is to get away from that. It should be possible to determine which partition a row belongs to in O(1) time, not O(N). > I would guess > that bin width is partition interval such that each bin number gives > partition number (of equal-sized consecutively numbered partitions > without gaps). But I don't quite understand what origin point is? Is > that a key literal value from which to begin counting bins and if so, is > it stored in catalog as part of the partitioning rule? Yeah, I would think so. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers