Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

Hi,

Hannu Krosing wrote:
> I guess it would go to some "default" partition ?

Which doesn't have a name so far, which prevents from addressing that 
partition. Nor is it pretty well defined, it's just a rest.

> sure, but this can become really tedious for 1024 partitions,

Well, managing 1024 partitions manually is a tedious job, no matter what 
grammar you take: You'll have to deal with 1024 different partition names.

What do you need so many partitions for?

> not to
> mention hard for optimiser.

It's pretty much the same for the optimizer: a binary tree.  Granted, 
that binary tree should better be balanced by the RDBMS.

Regards

Markus