Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@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 individual partition?
Absolutely. Anything else is not scalable; it's just another flavor of
the inheritance + CHECK constraint mechanism. The entire point of doing a
new partitioning design IMO is to get away from that. It should be
possible to determine which partition a row belongs to in O(1) time, not
O(N).
> I would guess
> that bin width is partition interval such that each bin number gives
> partition number (of equal-sized consecutively numbered partitions
> without gaps). But I don't quite understand what origin point is? Is
> that a key literal value from which to begin counting bins and if so, is
> it stored in catalog as part of the partitioning rule?
Yeah, I would think so.
regards, tom lane