Re: Partition DB Tables by month

Ray Ontko wrote:

>One limitation to the UNION approach is that you can't
>insert, update, or delete through the UNION view.  At
>some point the application needs to understand how the
>virtual table is partitioned into these month-specific
>tables.
>
>Romido: Why not simply delete the rows each month instead
>of dropping tables each month?
>
Hmm,
but it wouls surely be possible (at the cost of some performace)
to put a trigger on the view to actually sort this all out.
I guess deleting is a really bad option, as
1. The DB needs to do all kinds of logging which you donmm't want (you
dont want to rollback ever)
2. This operations leaves you with a big Vacuum job

Therefore, I think, Partitioning could be a good thing.
BDW: This might be a really important reason for a
company to switch their Data Warehouse to Postgres,
as this is almost impossible without it.


Regards,
Dani