Baoding-FenShuaJiang
/
Green_GoodERP18_FSJ_Standard


			
				
					
						
						
							
							<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title>5.11. Table Partitioning</title><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="stylesheet.css" /><link rev="made" href="pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" /><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.79.1" /><link rel="prev" href="ddl-inherit.html" title="5.10. Inheritance" /><link rel="next" href="ddl-foreign-data.html" title="5.12. Foreign Data" /></head><body><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/transitional" class="navheader"><table width="100%" summary="Navigation header"><tr><th colspan="5" align="center">5.11. Table Partitioning</th></tr><tr><td width="10%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="ddl-inherit.html" title="5.10. Inheritance">Prev</a> </td><td width="10%" align="left"><a accesskey="u" href="ddl.html" title="Chapter 5. Data Definition">Up</a></td><th width="60%" align="center">Chapter 5. Data Definition</th><td width="10%" align="right"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html" title="PostgreSQL 12.4 Documentation">Home</a></td><td width="10%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="ddl-foreign-data.html" title="5.12. Foreign Data">Next</a></td></tr></table><hr></hr></div><div class="sect1" id="DDL-PARTITIONING"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both">5.11. Table Partitioning</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-OVERVIEW">5.11.1. Overview</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE">5.11.2. Declarative Partitioning</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-IMPLEMENTATION-INHERITANCE">5.11.3. Implementation Using Inheritance</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITION-PRUNING">5.11.4. Partition Pruning</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION">5.11.5. Partitioning and Constraint Exclusion</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-BEST-PRACTICES">5.11.6. Declarative Partitioning Best Practices</a></span></dt></dl></div><a id="id-1.5.4.13.2" class="indexterm"></a><a id="id-1.5.4.13.3" class="indexterm"></a><a id="id-1.5.4.13.4" class="indexterm"></a><p>
    <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> supports basic table
    partitioning. This section describes why and how to implement
    partitioning as part of your database design.
   </p><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-OVERVIEW"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.11.1. Overview</h3></div></div></div><p>
     Partitioning refers to splitting what is logically one large table into
     smaller physical pieces.  Partitioning can provide several benefits:
    </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
       Query performance can be improved dramatically in certain situations,
       particularly when most of the heavily accessed rows of the table are in a
       single partition or a small number of partitions.  The partitioning
       substitutes for leading columns of indexes, reducing index size and
       making it more likely that the heavily-used parts of the indexes
       fit in memory.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       When queries or updates access a large percentage of a single
       partition, performance can be improved by taking advantage
       of sequential scan of that partition instead of using an
       index and random access reads scattered across the whole table.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing
       partitions, if that requirement is planned into the partitioning design.
       Doing <code class="command">ALTER TABLE DETACH PARTITION</code> or dropping an individual
       partition using <code class="command">DROP TABLE</code> is far faster than a bulk
       operation.  These commands also entirely avoid the
       <code class="command">VACUUM</code> overhead caused by a bulk <code class="command">DELETE</code>.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       Seldom-used data can be migrated to cheaper and slower storage media.
      </p></li></ul></div><p>

     The benefits will normally be worthwhile only when a table would
     otherwise be very large. The exact point at which a table will
     benefit from partitioning depends on the application, although a
     rule of thumb is that the size of the table should exceed the physical
     memory of the database server.
    </p><p>
     <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> offers built-in support for the
     following forms of partitioning:

     </p><div class="variablelist"><dl class="variablelist"><dt><span class="term">Range Partitioning</span></dt><dd><p>
         The table is partitioned into <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ranges</span>”</span> defined
         by a key column or set of columns, with no overlap between
         the ranges of values assigned to different partitions.  For
         example, one might partition by date ranges, or by ranges of
         identifiers for particular business objects.
        </p></dd><dt><span class="term">List Partitioning</span></dt><dd><p>
         The table is partitioned by explicitly listing which key values
         appear in each partition.
        </p></dd><dt><span class="term">Hash Partitioning</span></dt><dd><p>
         The table is partitioned by specifying a modulus and a remainder for
         each partition. Each partition will hold the rows for which the hash
         value of the partition key divided by the specified modulus will
         produce the specified remainder.
        </p></dd></dl></div><p>

     If your application needs to use other forms of partitioning not listed
     above, alternative methods such as inheritance and
     <code class="literal">UNION ALL</code> views can be used instead.  Such methods
     offer flexibility but do not have some of the performance benefits
     of built-in declarative partitioning.
    </p></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.11.2. Declarative Partitioning</h3></div></div></div><p>
    <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> offers a way to specify how to
    divide a table into pieces called partitions.  The table that is divided
    is referred to as a <em class="firstterm">partitioned table</em>.  The
    specification consists of the <em class="firstterm">partitioning method</em>
    and a list of columns or expressions to be used as the
    <em class="firstterm">partition key</em>.
   </p><p>
    All rows inserted into a partitioned table will be routed to one of the
    <em class="firstterm">partitions</em> based on the value of the partition
    key.  Each partition has a subset of the data defined by its
    <em class="firstterm">partition bounds</em>.  The currently supported
    partitioning methods are range, list, and hash.
   </p><p>
    Partitions may themselves be defined as partitioned tables, using what is
    called <em class="firstterm">sub-partitioning</em>.  Partitions may have their
    own indexes, constraints and default values, distinct from those of other
    partitions.  See <a class="xref" href="sql-createtable.html" title="CREATE TABLE"><span class="refentrytitle">CREATE TABLE</span></a> for more details on
    creating partitioned tables and partitions.
   </p><p>
    It is not possible to turn a regular table into a partitioned table or
    vice versa.  However, it is possible to add a regular or partitioned table
    containing data as a partition of a partitioned table, or remove a
    partition from a partitioned table turning it into a standalone table;
    see <a class="xref" href="sql-altertable.html" title="ALTER TABLE"><span class="refentrytitle">ALTER TABLE</span></a> to learn more about the
    <code class="command">ATTACH PARTITION</code> and <code class="command">DETACH PARTITION</code>
    sub-commands.
   </p><p>
    Individual partitions are linked to the partitioned table with inheritance
    behind-the-scenes; however, it is not possible to use some of the
    generic features of inheritance (discussed below) with declaratively
    partitioned tables or their partitions.  For example, a partition
    cannot have any parents other than the partitioned table it is a
    partition of, nor can a regular table inherit from a partitioned table
    making the latter its parent.  That means partitioned tables and their
    partitions do not participate in inheritance with regular tables.
    Since a partition hierarchy consisting of the partitioned table and its
    partitions is still an inheritance hierarchy, all the normal rules of
    inheritance apply as described in <a class="xref" href="ddl-inherit.html" title="5.10. Inheritance">Section 5.10</a> with
    some exceptions, most notably:

    </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
       Both <code class="literal">CHECK</code> and <code class="literal">NOT NULL</code>
       constraints of a partitioned table are always inherited by all its
       partitions.  <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraints that are marked
       <code class="literal">NO INHERIT</code> are not allowed to be created on
       partitioned tables.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       Using <code class="literal">ONLY</code> to add or drop a constraint on only the
       partitioned table is supported as long as there are no partitions.  Once
       partitions exist, using <code class="literal">ONLY</code> will result in an error
       as adding or dropping constraints on only the partitioned table, when
       partitions exist, is not supported.  Instead, constraints on the
       partitions themselves can be added and (if they are not present in the
       parent table) dropped.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       As a partitioned table does not have any data directly, attempts to use
       <code class="command">TRUNCATE</code> <code class="literal">ONLY</code> on a partitioned
       table will always return an error.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       Partitions cannot have columns that are not present in the parent.  It
       is not possible to specify columns when creating partitions with
       <code class="command">CREATE TABLE</code>, nor is it possible to add columns to
       partitions after-the-fact using <code class="command">ALTER TABLE</code>.  Tables may be
       added as a partition with <code class="command">ALTER TABLE ... ATTACH PARTITION</code>
       only if their columns exactly match the parent.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       You cannot drop the <code class="literal">NOT NULL</code> constraint on a
       partition's column if the constraint is present in the parent table.
      </p></li></ul></div><p>
   </p><p>
    Partitions can also be foreign tables, although they have some limitations
    that normal tables do not; see <a class="xref" href="sql-createforeigntable.html" title="CREATE FOREIGN TABLE"><span class="refentrytitle">CREATE FOREIGN TABLE</span></a> for
    more information.
   </p><p>
    Updating the partition key of a row might cause it to be moved into a
    different partition where this row satisfies the partition bounds.
   </p><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-EXAMPLE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.11.2.1. Example</h4></div></div></div><p>
    Suppose we are constructing a database for a large ice cream company.
    The company measures peak temperatures every day as well as ice cream
    sales in each region. Conceptually, we want a table like:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement (
    city_id         int not null,
    logdate         date not null,
    peaktemp        int,
    unitsales       int
);
</pre><p>

    We know that most queries will access just the last week's, month's or
    quarter's data, since the main use of this table will be to prepare
    online reports for management.  To reduce the amount of old data that
    needs to be stored, we decide to only keep the most recent 3 years
    worth of data. At the beginning of each month we will remove the oldest
    month's data.  In this situation we can use partitioning to help us meet
    all of our different requirements for the measurements table.
   </p><p>
    To use declarative partitioning in this case, use the following steps:

    </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist compact" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
       Create <code class="structname">measurement</code> table as a partitioned
       table by specifying the <code class="literal">PARTITION BY</code> clause, which
       includes the partitioning method (<code class="literal">RANGE</code> in this
       case) and the list of column(s) to use as the partition key.

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement (
    city_id         int not null,
    logdate         date not null,
    peaktemp        int,
    unitsales       int
) PARTITION BY RANGE (logdate);
</pre><p>
      </p><p>
       You may decide to use multiple columns in the partition key for range
       partitioning, if desired.  Of course, this will often result in a larger
       number of partitions, each of which is individually smaller.  On the
       other hand, using fewer columns may lead to a coarser-grained
       partitioning criteria with smaller number of partitions.  A query
       accessing the partitioned table will have to scan fewer partitions if
       the conditions involve some or all of these columns.
       For example, consider a table range partitioned using columns
       <code class="structfield">lastname</code> and <code class="structfield">firstname</code> (in that order)
       as the partition key.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       Create partitions.  Each partition's definition must specify the bounds
       that correspond to the partitioning method and partition key of the
       parent.  Note that specifying bounds such that the new partition's
       values will overlap with those in one or more existing partitions will
       cause an error.  Inserting data into the parent table that does not map
       to one of the existing partitions will cause an error; an appropriate
       partition must be added manually.
      </p><p>
       Partitions thus created are in every way normal
       <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span>
       tables (or, possibly, foreign tables).  It is possible to specify a
       tablespace and storage parameters for each partition separately.
      </p><p>
       It is not necessary to create table constraints describing partition
       boundary condition for partitions.  Instead, partition constraints are
       generated implicitly from the partition bound specification whenever
       there is need to refer to them.

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m02 PARTITION OF measurement
    FOR VALUES FROM ('2006-02-01') TO ('2006-03-01');

CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m03 PARTITION OF measurement
    FOR VALUES FROM ('2006-03-01') TO ('2006-04-01');

...
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m11 PARTITION OF measurement
    FOR VALUES FROM ('2007-11-01') TO ('2007-12-01');

CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m12 PARTITION OF measurement
    FOR VALUES FROM ('2007-12-01') TO ('2008-01-01')
    TABLESPACE fasttablespace;

CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 PARTITION OF measurement
    FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-01-01') TO ('2008-02-01')
    WITH (parallel_workers = 4)
    TABLESPACE fasttablespace;
</pre><p>
      </p><p>
       To implement sub-partitioning, specify the
       <code class="literal">PARTITION BY</code> clause in the commands used to create
       individual partitions, for example:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m02 PARTITION OF measurement
    FOR VALUES FROM ('2006-02-01') TO ('2006-03-01')
    PARTITION BY RANGE (peaktemp);
</pre><p>

       After creating partitions of <code class="structname">measurement_y2006m02</code>,
       any data inserted into <code class="structname">measurement</code> that is mapped to
       <code class="structname">measurement_y2006m02</code> (or data that is directly inserted
       into <code class="structname">measurement_y2006m02</code>, provided it satisfies its
       partition constraint) will be further redirected to one of its
       partitions based on the <code class="structfield">peaktemp</code> column.  The partition
       key specified may overlap with the parent's partition key, although
       care should be taken when specifying the bounds of a sub-partition
       such that the set of data it accepts constitutes a subset of what
       the partition's own bounds allows; the system does not try to check
       whether that's really the case.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       Create an index on the key column(s), as well as any other indexes you
       might want, on the partitioned table. (The key index is not strictly
       necessary, but in most scenarios it is helpful.)
       This automatically creates
       one index on each partition, and any partitions you create or attach
       later will also contain the index.

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE INDEX ON measurement (logdate);
</pre><p>
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        Ensure that the <a class="xref" href="runtime-config-query.html#GUC-ENABLE-PARTITION-PRUNING">enable_partition_pruning</a>
        configuration parameter is not disabled in <code class="filename">postgresql.conf</code>.
        If it is, queries will not be optimized as desired.
       </p></li></ol></div><p>
   </p><p>
    In the above example we would be creating a new partition each month, so
    it might be wise to write a script that generates the required DDL
    automatically.
   </p></div><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENANCE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.11.2.2. Partition Maintenance</h4></div></div></div><p>
      Normally the set of partitions established when initially defining the
      table are not intended to remain static.  It is common to want to
      remove old partitions of data and periodically add new partitions for
      new data. One of the most important advantages of partitioning is
      precisely that it allows this otherwise painful task to be executed
      nearly instantaneously by manipulating the partition structure, rather
      than physically moving large amounts of data around.
    </p><p>
     The simplest option for removing old data is to drop the partition that
     is no longer necessary:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
DROP TABLE measurement_y2006m02;
</pre><p>
     This can very quickly delete millions of records because it doesn't have
     to individually delete every record.  Note however that the above command
     requires taking an <code class="literal">ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</code> lock on the parent
     table.
    </p><p>
     Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition from
     the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
     right:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
ALTER TABLE measurement DETACH PARTITION measurement_y2006m02;
</pre><p>

     This allows further operations to be performed on the data before
     it is dropped. For example, this is often a useful time to back up
     the data using <code class="command">COPY</code>, <span class="application">pg_dump</span>, or
     similar tools. It might also be a useful time to aggregate data
     into smaller formats, perform other data manipulations, or run
     reports.
   </p><p>
     Similarly we can add a new partition to handle new data. We can create an
     empty partition in the partitioned table just as the original partitions
     were created above:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m02 PARTITION OF measurement
    FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-02-01') TO ('2008-03-01')
    TABLESPACE fasttablespace;
</pre><p>

     As an alternative, it is sometimes more convenient to create the
     new table outside the partition structure, and make it a proper
     partition later. This allows the data to be loaded, checked, and
     transformed prior to it appearing in the partitioned table:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m02
  (LIKE measurement INCLUDING DEFAULTS INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS)
  TABLESPACE fasttablespace;

ALTER TABLE measurement_y2008m02 ADD CONSTRAINT y2008m02
   CHECK ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-02-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2008-03-01' );

\copy measurement_y2008m02 from 'measurement_y2008m02'
-- possibly some other data preparation work

ALTER TABLE measurement ATTACH PARTITION measurement_y2008m02
    FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-02-01') TO ('2008-03-01' );
</pre><p>
    </p><p>
     Before running the <code class="command">ATTACH PARTITION</code> command, it is
     recommended to create a <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraint on the table to
     be attached matching the desired partition constraint. That way,
     the system will be able to skip the scan to validate the implicit
     partition constraint. Without the <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraint,
     the table will be scanned to validate the partition constraint while
     holding an <code class="literal">ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</code> lock on that partition
     and a <code class="literal">SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE</code> lock on the parent table.
     It may be desired to drop the redundant <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraint
     after <code class="command">ATTACH PARTITION</code> is finished.
    </p><p>
     As explained above, it is possible to create indexes on partitioned tables
     and they are applied automatically to the entire hierarchy.  This is very
     convenient, as not only the existing partitions will become indexed, but
     also any partitions that are created in the future will.  One limitation is
     that it's not possible to use the <code class="literal">CONCURRENTLY</code>
     qualifier when creating such a partitioned index.  To overcome long lock
     times, it is possible to use <code class="command">CREATE INDEX ON ONLY</code>
     the partitioned table; such an index is marked invalid, and the partitions
     do not get the index applied automatically.  The indexes on partitions can
     be created separately using <code class="literal">CONCURRENTLY</code>, and later
     <em class="firstterm">attached</em> to the index on the parent using
     <code class="command">ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH PARTITION</code>.  Once indexes for all
     partitions are attached to the parent index, the parent index is marked
     valid automatically.  Example:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE INDEX measurement_usls_idx ON ONLY measurement (unitsales);

CREATE INDEX measurement_usls_200602_idx
    ON measurement_y2006m02 (unitsales);
ALTER INDEX measurement_usls_idx
    ATTACH PARTITION measurement_usls_200602_idx;
...
</pre><p>

     This technique can be used with <code class="literal">UNIQUE</code> and
     <code class="literal">PRIMARY KEY</code> constraints too; the indexes are created
     implicitly when the constraint is created.  Example:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
ALTER TABLE ONLY measurement ADD UNIQUE (city_id, logdate);

ALTER TABLE measurement_y2006m02 ADD UNIQUE (city_id, logdate);
ALTER INDEX measurement_city_id_logdate_key
    ATTACH PARTITION measurement_y2006m02_city_id_logdate_key;
...
</pre><p>
    </p></div><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-LIMITATIONS"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.11.2.3. Limitations</h4></div></div></div><p>
    The following limitations apply to partitioned tables:
    </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
       There is no way to create an
       exclusion constraint spanning all partitions; it is only possible
       to constrain each leaf partition individually.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       Unique constraints on partitioned tables must include all the
       partition key columns.  This limitation exists because
       <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> can only enforce
       uniqueness in each partition individually.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       <code class="literal">BEFORE ROW</code> triggers, if necessary, must be defined
       on individual partitions, not the partitioned table.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       Mixing temporary and permanent relations in the same partition tree is
       not allowed.  Hence, if the partitioned table is permanent, so must be
       its partitions and likewise if the partitioned table is temporary.  When
       using temporary relations, all members of the partition tree have to be
       from the same session.
      </p></li></ul></div><p>
    </p></div></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-IMPLEMENTATION-INHERITANCE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.11.3. Implementation Using Inheritance</h3></div></div></div><p>
     While the built-in declarative partitioning is suitable for most
     common use cases, there are some circumstances where a more flexible
     approach may be useful.  Partitioning can be implemented using table
     inheritance, which allows for several features not supported
     by declarative partitioning, such as:

     </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
        For declarative partitioning, partitions must have exactly the same set
        of columns as the partitioned table, whereas with table inheritance,
        child tables may have extra columns not present in the parent.
       </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        Table inheritance allows for multiple inheritance.
       </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        Declarative partitioning only supports range, list and hash
        partitioning, whereas table inheritance allows data to be divided in a
        manner of the user's choosing.  (Note, however, that if constraint
        exclusion is unable to prune child tables effectively, query performance
        might be poor.)
       </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        Some operations require a stronger lock when using declarative
        partitioning than when using table inheritance.  For example,
        removing a partition from a partitioned table requires taking
        an <code class="literal">ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</code> lock on the parent table,
        whereas a <code class="literal">SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE</code> lock is enough
        in the case of regular inheritance.
       </p></li></ul></div><p>
    </p><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-INHERITANCE-EXAMPLE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.11.3.1. Example</h4></div></div></div><p>
      We use the non-partitioned <code class="structname">measurement</code>
      table above.  To implement partitioning using inheritance, use
      the following steps:

      </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist compact" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
         Create the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">master</span>”</span> table, from which all of the
         <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">child</span>”</span> tables will inherit.  This table will contain no data.  Do not
         define any check constraints on this table, unless you intend them
         to be applied equally to all child tables.  There is no point in
         defining any indexes or unique constraints on it, either.  For our
         example, the master table is the <code class="structname">measurement</code>
         table as originally defined.
        </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
         Create several <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">child</span>”</span> tables that each inherit from
         the master table.  Normally, these tables will not add any columns
         to the set inherited from the master.  Just as with declarative
         partitioning, these tables are in every way normal
         <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> tables (or foreign tables).
        </p><p>
</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m02 () INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m03 () INHERITS (measurement);
...
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m11 () INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m12 () INHERITS (measurement);
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 () INHERITS (measurement);
</pre><p>
        </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
         Add non-overlapping table constraints to the child tables to
         define the allowed key values in each.
        </p><p>
         Typical examples would be:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
CHECK ( x = 1 )
CHECK ( county IN ( 'Oxfordshire', 'Buckinghamshire', 'Warwickshire' ))
CHECK ( outletID &gt;= 100 AND outletID &lt; 200 )
</pre><p>
         Ensure that the constraints guarantee that there is no overlap
         between the key values permitted in different child tables.  A common
         mistake is to set up range constraints like:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
CHECK ( outletID BETWEEN 100 AND 200 )
CHECK ( outletID BETWEEN 200 AND 300 )
</pre><p>
         This is wrong since it is not clear which child table the key
         value 200 belongs in.
        </p><p>
         It would be better to instead create child tables as follows:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m02 (
    CHECK ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2006-02-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2006-03-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);

CREATE TABLE measurement_y2006m03 (
    CHECK ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2006-03-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2006-04-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);

...
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m11 (
    CHECK ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2007-11-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2007-12-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);

CREATE TABLE measurement_y2007m12 (
    CHECK ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2007-12-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2008-01-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);

CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 (
    CHECK ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-01-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2008-02-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);
</pre><p>
        </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
         For each child table, create an index on the key column(s),
         as well as any other indexes you might want.
</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2006m02_logdate ON measurement_y2006m02 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2006m03_logdate ON measurement_y2006m03 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2007m11_logdate ON measurement_y2007m11 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2007m12_logdate ON measurement_y2007m12 (logdate);
CREATE INDEX measurement_y2008m01_logdate ON measurement_y2008m01 (logdate);
</pre><p>
        </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
         We want our application to be able to say <code class="literal">INSERT INTO
         measurement ...</code> and have the data be redirected into the
         appropriate child table.  We can arrange that by attaching
         a suitable trigger function to the master table.
         If data will be added only to the latest child, we can
         use a very simple trigger function:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION measurement_insert_trigger()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
BEGIN
    INSERT INTO measurement_y2008m01 VALUES (NEW.*);
    RETURN NULL;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
</pre><p>
        </p><p>
         After creating the function, we create a trigger which
         calls the trigger function:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TRIGGER insert_measurement_trigger
    BEFORE INSERT ON measurement
    FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE FUNCTION measurement_insert_trigger();
</pre><p>

         We must redefine the trigger function each month so that it always
         points to the current child table.  The trigger definition does
         not need to be updated, however.
        </p><p>
         We might want to insert data and have the server automatically
         locate the child table into which the row should be added. We
         could do this with a more complex trigger function, for example:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION measurement_insert_trigger()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
BEGIN
    IF ( NEW.logdate &gt;= DATE '2006-02-01' AND
         NEW.logdate &lt; DATE '2006-03-01' ) THEN
        INSERT INTO measurement_y2006m02 VALUES (NEW.*);
    ELSIF ( NEW.logdate &gt;= DATE '2006-03-01' AND
            NEW.logdate &lt; DATE '2006-04-01' ) THEN
        INSERT INTO measurement_y2006m03 VALUES (NEW.*);
    ...
    ELSIF ( NEW.logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-01-01' AND
            NEW.logdate &lt; DATE '2008-02-01' ) THEN
        INSERT INTO measurement_y2008m01 VALUES (NEW.*);
    ELSE
        RAISE EXCEPTION 'Date out of range.  Fix the measurement_insert_trigger() function!';
    END IF;
    RETURN NULL;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
</pre><p>

         The trigger definition is the same as before.
         Note that each <code class="literal">IF</code> test must exactly match the
         <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraint for its child table.
        </p><p>
         While this function is more complex than the single-month case,
         it doesn't need to be updated as often, since branches can be
         added in advance of being needed.
        </p><div class="note"><h3 class="title">Note</h3><p>
          In practice, it might be best to check the newest child first,
          if most inserts go into that child.  For simplicity, we have
          shown the trigger's tests in the same order as in other parts
          of this example.
         </p></div><p>
         A different approach to redirecting inserts into the appropriate
         child table is to set up rules, instead of a trigger, on the
         master table.  For example:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE RULE measurement_insert_y2006m02 AS
ON INSERT TO measurement WHERE
    ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2006-02-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2006-03-01' )
DO INSTEAD
    INSERT INTO measurement_y2006m02 VALUES (NEW.*);
...
CREATE RULE measurement_insert_y2008m01 AS
ON INSERT TO measurement WHERE
    ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-01-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2008-02-01' )
DO INSTEAD
    INSERT INTO measurement_y2008m01 VALUES (NEW.*);
</pre><p>

         A rule has significantly more overhead than a trigger, but the
         overhead is paid once per query rather than once per row, so this
         method might be advantageous for bulk-insert situations.  In most
         cases, however, the trigger method will offer better performance.
        </p><p>
         Be aware that <code class="command">COPY</code> ignores rules.  If you want to
         use <code class="command">COPY</code> to insert data, you'll need to copy into the
         correct child table rather than directly into the master. <code class="command">COPY</code>
         does fire triggers, so you can use it normally if you use the trigger
         approach.
        </p><p>
         Another disadvantage of the rule approach is that there is no simple
         way to force an error if the set of rules doesn't cover the insertion
         date; the data will silently go into the master table instead.
        </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
         Ensure that the <a class="xref" href="runtime-config-query.html#GUC-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION">constraint_exclusion</a>
         configuration parameter is not disabled in
         <code class="filename">postgresql.conf</code>; otherwise
         child tables may be accessed unnecessarily.
        </p></li></ol></div><p>
     </p><p>
      As we can see, a complex table hierarchy could require a
      substantial amount of DDL.  In the above example we would be creating
      a new child table each month, so it might be wise to write a script that
      generates the required DDL automatically.
     </p></div><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-INHERITANCE-MAINTENANCE"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.11.3.2. Maintenance for Inheritance Partitioning</h4></div></div></div><p>
      To remove old data quickly, simply drop the child table that is no longer
      necessary:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
DROP TABLE measurement_y2006m02;
</pre><p>
     </p><p>
     To remove the child table from the inheritance hierarchy table but retain access to
     it as a table in its own right:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
ALTER TABLE measurement_y2006m02 NO INHERIT measurement;
</pre><p>
    </p><p>
     To add a new child table to handle new data, create an empty child table
     just as the original children were created above:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m02 (
    CHECK ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-02-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2008-03-01' )
) INHERITS (measurement);
</pre><p>

     Alternatively, one may want to create and populate the new child table
     before adding it to the table hierarchy.  This could allow data to be
     loaded, checked, and transformed before being made visible to queries on
     the parent table.

</p><pre class="programlisting">
CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m02
  (LIKE measurement INCLUDING DEFAULTS INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS);
ALTER TABLE measurement_y2008m02 ADD CONSTRAINT y2008m02
   CHECK ( logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-02-01' AND logdate &lt; DATE '2008-03-01' );
\copy measurement_y2008m02 from 'measurement_y2008m02'
-- possibly some other data preparation work
ALTER TABLE measurement_y2008m02 INHERIT measurement;
</pre><p>
    </p></div><div class="sect3" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-INHERITANCE-CAVEATS"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title">5.11.3.3. Caveats</h4></div></div></div><p>
     The following caveats apply to partitioning implemented using
     inheritance:
     </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
        There is no automatic way to verify that all of the
        <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraints are mutually
        exclusive.  It is safer to create code that generates
        child tables and creates and/or modifies associated objects than
        to write each by hand.
       </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        Indexes and foreign key constraints apply to single tables and not
        to their inheritance children, hence they have some
        <a class="link" href="ddl-inherit.html#DDL-INHERIT-CAVEATS" title="5.10.1. Caveats">caveats</a> to be aware of.
       </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        The schemes shown here assume that the values of a row's key column(s)
        never change, or at least do not change enough to require it to move to another partition.
        An <code class="command">UPDATE</code> that attempts
        to do that will fail because of the <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraints.
        If you need to handle such cases, you can put suitable update triggers
        on the child tables, but it makes management of the structure
        much more complicated.
       </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        If you are using manual <code class="command">VACUUM</code> or
        <code class="command">ANALYZE</code> commands, don't forget that
        you need to run them on each child table individually. A command like:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
ANALYZE measurement;
</pre><p>
        will only process the master table.
       </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        <code class="command">INSERT</code> statements with <code class="literal">ON CONFLICT</code>
        clauses are unlikely to work as expected, as the <code class="literal">ON CONFLICT</code>
        action is only taken in case of unique violations on the specified
        target relation, not its child relations.
       </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
        Triggers or rules will be needed to route rows to the desired
        child table, unless the application is explicitly aware of the
        partitioning scheme.  Triggers may be complicated to write, and will
        be much slower than the tuple routing performed internally by
        declarative partitioning.
       </p></li></ul></div><p>
    </p></div></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITION-PRUNING"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.11.4. Partition Pruning</h3></div></div></div><a id="id-1.5.4.13.9.2" class="indexterm"></a><p>
    <em class="firstterm">Partition pruning</em> is a query optimization technique
    that improves performance for declaratively partitioned tables.
    As an example:

</p><pre class="programlisting">
SET enable_partition_pruning = on;                 -- the default
SELECT count(*) FROM measurement WHERE logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-01-01';
</pre><p>

    Without partition pruning, the above query would scan each of the
    partitions of the <code class="structname">measurement</code> table. With
    partition pruning enabled, the planner will examine the definition
    of each partition and prove that the partition need not
    be scanned because it could not contain any rows meeting the query's
    <code class="literal">WHERE</code> clause.  When the planner can prove this, it
    excludes (<em class="firstterm">prunes</em>) the partition from the query
    plan.
   </p><p>
    By using the EXPLAIN command and the <a class="xref" href="runtime-config-query.html#GUC-ENABLE-PARTITION-PRUNING">enable_partition_pruning</a> configuration parameter, it's
    possible to show the difference between a plan for which partitions have
    been pruned and one for which they have not.  A typical unoptimized
    plan for this type of table setup is:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
SET enable_partition_pruning = off;
EXPLAIN SELECT count(*) FROM measurement WHERE logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-01-01';
                                    QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Aggregate  (cost=188.76..188.77 rows=1 width=8)
   -&gt;  Append  (cost=0.00..181.05 rows=3085 width=0)
         -&gt;  Seq Scan on measurement_y2006m02  (cost=0.00..33.12 rows=617 width=0)
               Filter: (logdate &gt;= '2008-01-01'::date)
         -&gt;  Seq Scan on measurement_y2006m03  (cost=0.00..33.12 rows=617 width=0)
               Filter: (logdate &gt;= '2008-01-01'::date)
...
         -&gt;  Seq Scan on measurement_y2007m11  (cost=0.00..33.12 rows=617 width=0)
               Filter: (logdate &gt;= '2008-01-01'::date)
         -&gt;  Seq Scan on measurement_y2007m12  (cost=0.00..33.12 rows=617 width=0)
               Filter: (logdate &gt;= '2008-01-01'::date)
         -&gt;  Seq Scan on measurement_y2008m01  (cost=0.00..33.12 rows=617 width=0)
               Filter: (logdate &gt;= '2008-01-01'::date)
</pre><p>

    Some or all of the partitions might use index scans instead of
    full-table sequential scans, but the point here is that there
    is no need to scan the older partitions at all to answer this query.
    When we enable partition pruning, we get a significantly
    cheaper plan that will deliver the same answer:
</p><pre class="programlisting">
SET enable_partition_pruning = on;
EXPLAIN SELECT count(*) FROM measurement WHERE logdate &gt;= DATE '2008-01-01';
                                    QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Aggregate  (cost=37.75..37.76 rows=1 width=8)
   -&gt;  Seq Scan on measurement_y2008m01  (cost=0.00..33.12 rows=617 width=0)
         Filter: (logdate &gt;= '2008-01-01'::date)
</pre><p>
   </p><p>
    Note that partition pruning is driven only by the constraints defined
    implicitly by the partition keys, not by the presence of indexes.
    Therefore it isn't necessary to define indexes on the key columns.
    Whether an index needs to be created for a given partition depends on
    whether you expect that queries that scan the partition will
    generally scan a large part of the partition or just a small part.
    An index will be helpful in the latter case but not the former.
   </p><p>
    Partition pruning can be performed not only during the planning of a
    given query, but also during its execution.  This is useful as it can
    allow more partitions to be pruned when clauses contain expressions
    whose values are not known at query planning time, for example,
    parameters defined in a <code class="command">PREPARE</code> statement, using a
    value obtained from a subquery, or using a parameterized value on the
    inner side of a nested loop join.  Partition pruning during execution
    can be performed at any of the following times:

    </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
       During initialization of the query plan.  Partition pruning can be
       performed here for parameter values which are known during the
       initialization phase of execution.  Partitions which are pruned
       during this stage will not show up in the query's
       <code class="command">EXPLAIN</code> or <code class="command">EXPLAIN ANALYZE</code>.
       It is possible to determine the number of partitions which were
       removed during this phase by observing the
       <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Subplans Removed</span>”</span> property in the
       <code class="command">EXPLAIN</code> output.
      </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
       During actual execution of the query plan.  Partition pruning may
       also be performed here to remove partitions using values which are
       only known during actual query execution.  This includes values
       from subqueries and values from execution-time parameters such as
       those from parameterized nested loop joins.  Since the value of
       these parameters may change many times during the execution of the
       query, partition pruning is performed whenever one of the
       execution parameters being used by partition pruning changes.
       Determining if partitions were pruned during this phase requires
       careful inspection of the <code class="literal">loops</code> property in
       the <code class="command">EXPLAIN ANALYZE</code> output.  Subplans
       corresponding to different partitions may have different values
       for it depending on how many times each of them was pruned during
       execution.  Some may be shown as <code class="literal">(never executed)</code>
       if they were pruned every time.
      </p></li></ul></div><p>
   </p><p>
    Partition pruning can be disabled using the
    <a class="xref" href="runtime-config-query.html#GUC-ENABLE-PARTITION-PRUNING">enable_partition_pruning</a> setting.
   </p><div class="note"><h3 class="title">Note</h3><p>
     Execution-time partition pruning currently only occurs for the
     <code class="literal">Append</code> and <code class="literal">MergeAppend</code> node types.
     It is not yet implemented for the <code class="literal">ModifyTable</code> node
     type, but that is likely to be changed in a future release of
     <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span>.
    </p></div></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.11.5. Partitioning and Constraint Exclusion</h3></div></div></div><a id="id-1.5.4.13.10.2" class="indexterm"></a><p>
    <em class="firstterm">Constraint exclusion</em> is a query optimization
    technique similar to partition pruning.  While it is primarily used
    for partitioning implemented using the legacy inheritance method, it can be
    used for other purposes, including with declarative partitioning.
   </p><p>
    Constraint exclusion works in a very similar way to partition
    pruning, except that it uses each table's <code class="literal">CHECK</code>
    constraints — which gives it its name — whereas partition
    pruning uses the table's partition bounds, which exist only in the
    case of declarative partitioning.  Another difference is that
    constraint exclusion is only applied at plan time; there is no attempt
    to remove partitions at execution time.
   </p><p>
    The fact that constraint exclusion uses <code class="literal">CHECK</code>
    constraints, which makes it slow compared to partition pruning, can
    sometimes be used as an advantage: because constraints can be defined
    even on declaratively-partitioned tables, in addition to their internal
    partition bounds, constraint exclusion may be able
    to elide additional partitions from the query plan.
   </p><p>
    The default (and recommended) setting of
    <a class="xref" href="runtime-config-query.html#GUC-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION">constraint_exclusion</a> is neither
    <code class="literal">on</code> nor <code class="literal">off</code>, but an intermediate setting
    called <code class="literal">partition</code>, which causes the technique to be
    applied only to queries that are likely to be working on inheritance partitioned
    tables.  The <code class="literal">on</code> setting causes the planner to examine
    <code class="literal">CHECK</code> constraints in all queries, even simple ones that
    are unlikely to benefit.
   </p><p>
    The following caveats apply to constraint exclusion:

   </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
      Constraint exclusion is only applied during query planning, unlike
      partition pruning, which can also be applied during query execution.
     </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
      Constraint exclusion only works when the query's <code class="literal">WHERE</code>
      clause contains constants (or externally supplied parameters).
      For example, a comparison against a non-immutable function such as
      <code class="function">CURRENT_TIMESTAMP</code> cannot be optimized, since the
      planner cannot know which child table the function's value might fall
      into at run time.
     </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
      Keep the partitioning constraints simple, else the planner may not be
      able to prove that child tables might not need to be visited.  Use simple
      equality conditions for list partitioning, or simple
      range tests for range partitioning, as illustrated in the preceding
      examples.  A good rule of thumb is that partitioning constraints should
      contain only comparisons of the partitioning column(s) to constants
      using B-tree-indexable operators, because only B-tree-indexable
      column(s) are allowed in the partition key.
     </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
      All constraints on all children of the parent table are examined
      during constraint exclusion, so large numbers of children are likely
      to increase query planning time considerably.  So the legacy
      inheritance based partitioning will work well with up to perhaps a
      hundred child tables; don't try to use many thousands of children.
     </p></li></ul></div><p>
   </p></div><div class="sect2" id="DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-BEST-PRACTICES"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title">5.11.6. Declarative Partitioning Best Practices</h3></div></div></div><p>
    The choice of how to partition a table should be made carefully as the
    performance of query planning and execution can be negatively affected by
    poor design.
   </p><p>
    One of the most critical design decisions will be the column or columns
    by which you partition your data.  Often the best choice will be to
    partition by the column or set of columns which most commonly appear in
    <code class="literal">WHERE</code> clauses of queries being executed on the
    partitioned table.  <code class="literal">WHERE</code> clause items that match and
    are compatible with the partition key can be used to prune unneeded
    partitions.  However, you may be forced into making other decisions by
    requirements for the <code class="literal">PRIMARY KEY</code> or a
    <code class="literal">UNIQUE</code> constraint.  Removal of unwanted data is also a
    factor to consider when planning your partitioning strategy.  An entire
    partition can be detached fairly quickly, so it may be beneficial to
    design the partition strategy in such a way that all data to be removed
    at once is located in a single partition.
   </p><p>
    Choosing the target number of partitions that the table should be divided
    into is also a critical decision to make.  Not having enough partitions
    may mean that indexes remain too large and that data locality remains poor
    which could result in low cache hit ratios.  However, dividing the table
    into too many partitions can also cause issues.  Too many partitions can
    mean longer query planning times and higher memory consumption during both
    query planning and execution.  When choosing how to partition your table,
    it's also important to consider what changes may occur in the future.  For
    example, if you choose to have one partition per customer and you
    currently have a small number of large customers, consider the
    implications if in several years you instead find yourself with a large
    number of small customers.  In this case, it may be better to choose to
    partition by <code class="literal">HASH</code> and choose a reasonable number of
    partitions rather than trying to partition by <code class="literal">LIST</code> and
    hoping that the number of customers does not increase beyond what it is
    practical to partition the data by.
   </p><p>
    Sub-partitioning can be useful to further divide partitions that are
    expected to become larger than other partitions, although excessive
    sub-partitioning can easily lead to large numbers of partitions and can
    cause the same problems mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
   </p><p>
    It is also important to consider the overhead of partitioning during
    query planning and execution.  The query planner is generally able to
    handle partition hierarchies with up to a few thousand partitions fairly
    well, provided that typical queries allow the query planner to prune all
    but a small number of partitions.  Planning times become longer and memory
    consumption becomes higher when more partitions remain after the planner
    performs partition pruning.  This is particularly true for the
    <code class="command">UPDATE</code> and <code class="command">DELETE</code> commands.  Another
    reason to be concerned about having a large number of partitions is that
    the server's memory consumption may grow significantly over a period of
    time, especially if many sessions touch large numbers of partitions.
    That's because each partition requires its metadata to be loaded into the
    local memory of each session that touches it.
   </p><p>
    With data warehouse type workloads, it can make sense to use a larger
    number of partitions than with an <acronym class="acronym">OLTP</acronym> type workload.
    Generally, in data warehouses, query planning time is less of a concern as
    the majority of processing time is spent during query execution.  With
    either of these two types of workload, it is important to make the right
    decisions early, as re-partitioning large quantities of data can be
    painfully slow.  Simulations of the intended workload are often beneficial
    for optimizing the partitioning strategy.  Never assume that more
    partitions are better than fewer partitions and vice-versa.
   </p></div></div><div class="navfooter"><hr /><table width="100%" summary="Navigation footer"><tr><td width="40%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="ddl-inherit.html">Prev</a> </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="u" href="ddl.html">Up</a></td><td width="40%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="ddl-foreign-data.html">Next</a></td></tr><tr><td width="40%" align="left" valign="top">5.10. Inheritance </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html">Home</a></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"> 5.12. Foreign Data</td></tr></table></div></body></html>