On L, 2005-03-19 at 23:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hmm. You are right, but without that we won't be able to enforce > > uniqueness on the partitioned table (we could only enforce it on each > > partition, which would mean we can't partition on anything else than > > primary keys if the tables have one). IMHO this is something to > > consider. > > Well, partitioning on the primary key would be Good Enough for 95% or > 99% of the real problems out there. I'm not excited about adding a > large chunk of complexity to cover another few percent.
That automatically means that partitioning expression has to be a range over PK. (you dont want to have every tuple in separate tabel :) And it also means that you have to automatically create new partitions. Are you sure that partitioning on anything else than PK would be significantly harder ? I have a case where I do manual partitioning over start_time (timestamp), but the PK is an id from a sequence. They are almost, but not exactly in the same order. And I don't think that moving the PK to be (start_time, id) just because of "partitioning on PK only" would be a good design in any way. So please don't design the system to partition on PK only. -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org