Michael Paesold wrote:
NikhilS wrote:
If you have a partitioning setup that uses rules please
refer to the 8.2 documentation on partitioning
+1
I would also add another sentence about *why* the recommendation was
changed. We have one rule-based setup here, and it has been working
flawles
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rules are extremely slow in comparisons and not anywhere near as
> flexible. As I said up post yesterday... they work well in the basic
> partitioning configuration but anything else they are extremely deficient.
I think that the above claim is exc
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Rules are extremely slow in comparisons and not anywhere near as
> >> flexible. As I said up post yesterday... they work well in the basic
> >> partitioning configuration but anything else they are ext
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rules are extremely slow in comparisons and not anywhere near as
flexible. As I said up post yesterday... they work well in the basic
partitioning configuration but anything else they are extremely deficient.
I think that the above
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rules are extremely slow in comparisons and not anywhere near as
flexible. As I said up post yesterday... they work well in the basic
partitioning configuration but anything else they are
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> A trigger
>> will probably beat a rule for inserts/updates involving a small number
>> of rows.
> Which is exactly what partitioning is doing.
Nonsense. Well, maybe *you* never do that, but if so you are hardly
reflective of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:08:29 +
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> A trigger will probably beat a rule for inserts/updates involving
> >> a small number of ro
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
A trigger
will probably beat a rule for inserts/updates involving a small number
of rows.
Which is exactly what partitioning is doing.
For large numbers of rows, like an INSERT/SELECT from another
large table, the rule is likely to win, because its overhead is pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:29:51 +
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Heh, o.k. that was an ambiguous sentence. In a partitioned
> > environment you are likely not moving millions of rows ar
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 11:42:18AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> Rules are extremely slow in comparisons and not anywhere near as
> > >> flexible. As I said up post yesterday... they work well in
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 17:36 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Slightly modified patch attached and applied. Thanks.
Nice additions, thanks.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched
11 matches
Mail list logo
