Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
От | David Steele |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8e66f899-a264-6e90-82d0-3865178b1e18@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/3/17 8:33 AM, amul sul wrote: > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu > > It also has the advantage that it's easier to see how to add more > partitions. You just split all the ranges and (and migrate the > data...). There's even the possibility of having uneven partitions if > you have a data distribution skew -- which can happen even if you have > a good hash function. In a degenerate case you could have a partition > for a single hash of a particularly common value then a reasonable > number of partitions for the remaining hash ranges. > > Initially > we > had > to have > somewhat similar thought to make a range of hash > values for > > each partition, using the same half-open interval syntax we use in general: > <...> > So it's pretty > > user-unfriendly. This patch is marked as POC and after a read-through I agree that's exactly what it is. As such, I'm not sure it belongs in the last commitfest. Furthermore, there has not been any activity or a new patch in a while and we are halfway through the CF. Please post an explanation for the delay and a schedule for the new patch. If no patch or explanation is posted by 2017-03-17 AoE I will mark this submission "Returned with Feedback". -- -David david@pgmasters.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: