On Mar 6, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Shane Ambler wrote:
NikhilS wrote:
On 3/6/07, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Whether we should use triggers/rules for step number (iii) above.
> Maybe rules is the way to go.

Since this would basically be a case of the updatable rules problem, you should review those discussions in the past to check whether the issues
mentioned there don't interfere with that plan.
The rules mentioned here will be to specify that all the
inserts/updates/deletes should go into proper children tables instead of the parent. I do not see the updateable rules problem with regards to this, but will check out the archives for discussion on this related to partitioning.

I would think that a trigger would be a better choice as I see the need (or at least the possibility) for more than just a rewrite. When a value is inserted that is outside of a condition currently covered by an existing child table then a new child will need to be spawned to contain the new data.

There's no reason a new child has to be spawned, and I don't think that having a DML statement 'automagically' generating DDL is such a hot idea, either.

Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with having an 'overflow partition' (to use Oracle syntax) that holds values that don't fall in the range of any other tables. The obvious place to do that with our partitioning is in the parent table.

There are 2 other reasons to favor triggers though:

1) People (Josh Drake comes to mind) have found that if you get over a tiny number of partitions, the performance of rules is abysmal.

2) I believe it should be possible to construct an update trigger that allows you to perform updates that will place the row in question into a new partition. While I can see cases for simply disallowing updates to the partitioning key, I think there are also times when being able to do that would be very useful.

Will ALTER TABLE be extended to handle partitions? This will allow partitioning existing tables (maybe without blocking access?) and allow things like ALTER TABLE mytable ADD PARTITION (mydate within 200703) and ALTER TABLE mytable DROP PARTITION (mydate within 199912) or would dropping be covered by DELETE FROM mytable where mydate <= 199912 ?

I think it'd be great to make adding and removing partitions as simple as ALTER TABLE. I don't think that DELETE should be the mechanism to drop a partition, though. Again, DML statements shouldn't be performing DDL.

Could such a syntax be devised for date columns? (month of mydate) or similar to auto create partitions based on the year and month of a date column? or will we just do CHECK(mydatecol >= 1/3/07 and mydatecol <= 31/3/07) for each month of data? Also (day of mydatecol) to partition based on year and day of year.

Another syntax possibility - range(myserialcol of 500000) where new child tables are created every 500000 rows?

Maybe I'm looking at auto-maintenance which is beyond any current planning?

I don't think it's worth it to burden the database with auto-creating time partitions; it's easy enough to setup a cron job to handle it.

It might be more useful to have the database handle things like partitioning on a SERIAL column, though I agree with Nikhils that this should wait.

Does any other database support 'automagic' partition creation? I know Oracle 9i doesn't... not sure about 10g or DB2 or MSSQL...
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to