On 2/13/15 3:34 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:13:11PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/10/15 2:04 PM, David Fetter wrote:
Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
that is the kiss
On 2/10/15 2:04 PM, David Fetter wrote:
Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
that is the kiss of death for a feature like this - it will be so
restricted as to eliminate 75% of the use
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
If we exclude the issue of needing one or two oddball partitions for +/-
infinity, I expect that fixed sized partitions would actually cover 80-90%
of cases.
That would not be true in our case. The data is not at
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:13:11PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/10/15 2:04 PM, David Fetter wrote:
Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
that is the kiss of death for a feature like this -
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Amit Langote
langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Well, that's debatable IMO (especially your claim that variable-size
partitions would be needed by a majority of users). But in any case,
partitioning behavior that is emergent from a bunch of independent pieces
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:37:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It's going to be complicated and probably buggy, and I think it is heading
in the wrong direction altogether. If you want
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 02/09/2015 03:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Meh. I don't care for that much --- it sounds a lot like deciding that
your problem is a nail because there is a hammer within reach. A random
collection of ranges doesn't seem like a very appropriate
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
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It's going to be complicated and probably buggy, and I think it is heading
in the wrong direction altogether. If you want to partition in some
arbitrary complicated fashion that the system can't reason about very
effectively,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It's going to be complicated and probably buggy, and I think it is heading
in the wrong direction altogether. If you want to partition in some
arbitrary complicated fashion that the
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It's going to be complicated and probably buggy, and I think it is heading
in the wrong direction altogether. If
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:37:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
that is the kiss of death for a feature like this -
On 10-02-2015 AM 02:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It's going to be complicated and probably buggy, and I think it is heading
in the wrong direction altogether. If you want to partition in some
On 02/09/2015 03:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
On 07-02-2015 AM 12:10, Tom Lane wrote:
There is no good reason to assume that a range type exists at all, much
less that it is unique for a subtype. (Read the CREATE TYPE documentation
if you're
On 09-02-2015 AM 10:21, Tom Lane wrote:
Meh. I don't care for that much --- it sounds a lot like deciding that
your problem is a nail because there is a hammer within reach. A random
collection of ranges doesn't seem like a very appropriate representation
to me; first because there is no
On 07-02-2015 AM 12:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
I wonder why I cannot find a way to get a range type for a given (sub-)
type. I would like to build a RangeType from Datum's of lower and upper
bounds. Much like how construct_array() builds an ArrayType
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
On 07-02-2015 AM 12:10, Tom Lane wrote:
There is no good reason to assume that a range type exists at all, much
less that it is unique for a subtype. (Read the CREATE TYPE documentation
if you're unclear as to why not.) You have not said
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
I wonder why I cannot find a way to get a range type for a given (sub-)
type. I would like to build a RangeType from Datum's of lower and upper
bounds. Much like how construct_array() builds an ArrayType from a Datum
array of elements given
Hi, from nearby:)
I wonder why I cannot find a way to get a range type for a given (sub-)
type. I would like to build a RangeType from Datum's of lower and upper
bounds. Much like how construct_array() builds an ArrayType from a Datum
array of elements given elements' type info.
Is there
Horiguchi-san,
On 06-02-2015 PM 04:34, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hi, from nearby:)
Thank you!
I wonder why I cannot find a way to get a range type for a given (sub-)
type. I would like to build a RangeType from Datum's of lower and upper
bounds. Much like how construct_array() builds an
Hi,
I wonder why I cannot find a way to get a range type for a given (sub-)
type. I would like to build a RangeType from Datum's of lower and upper
bounds. Much like how construct_array() builds an ArrayType from a Datum
array of elements given elements' type info.
Is there some way I do not
21 matches
Mail list logo
