Axel Schwenke wrote:
> "onedbguru" <onedbguru@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > IMNSHO, using partitioned tables would be a much better alternative.
> > I have administered real databases in the multi-terabyte range with
> > this approach.
> >
> > create tablespace p0...
> > create tablespace p1 etc...
> >
> > CREATE TABLE t1 (
> > id INT,
> > year_col INT
> > )
> > PARTITION BY RANGE (year_col) (
> > PARTITION p0 VALUES LESS THAN (1991),
> > PARTITION p1 VALUES LESS THAN (1995),
> > PARTITION p2 VALUES LESS THAN (1999)
> > );
>
> Did you notice the word "mysql" in this groups name? Your suggestion
> does not work with MySQL. In fact MySQL 5.1 does support partitions -
> but it is currently BETA and the syntax is slightly different.
> MERGE tables (as suggested by me) are the poor mans approximation of
> partitions, available in stable MySQL editions.

UM, no. I've been using them since 3.x, and they work great for huge
amounts of data.