On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 19:58 -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
> Of course, there is no reason a relation in a relational class might not be
> huge.
Well, as a designer, I would make it so.
> Orthoganal partion rules would be created for the class. The rules would be
> applied to each member relation. Finally, the rules would be applied to the
> relevant unifying (presumably unique) indexes.
>
> But inasmuch as Postgresql has implemented neither partitioning nor unique
> constraints for relational classes we are getting somewhat ahead of
> ourselves.
Maybe you aren't aware of the new constraint_exclusion feature in 8.1 ?
> Partitioning is obviously dominated by partitioning rules. Oracle's SQL
> dialect provides a negative example of how to elegantly incorporate
> partitioning rules into SQL. Ideally partitioning rules should be
> first-class objects. A database engineer or the poor DBA who inherits his
> implementation should be able to query the meta-data to get a listing of all
> partitioned relations.
The partitioning doesn't follow Oracle syntax at all. Partitions are
first class objects as you suggest.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
