Obsolete
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
fr...@gmail.com
Hey,
same api error/question here.
We would like to try out experimental feature as well.
same api error/question here.
We would like to try out experimental feature as well.
tr...@gmail.com
We need it too... Did anyone find how we can get it ? Blocked with "Field based partitioning support is not yet available for this project" API error...
sa...@google.com
We are waiting on a few approvals to start alpha for this feature shortly.
Please watch this bug for more updates.
Please watch this bug for more updates.
lb...@gmail.com
That is great to hear!
I have one important question though regarding this new feature. Is it going to be implemented in such a way that we have the option to:
1) Select any column / field for partitioning BUT ALSO KEEP the time based partitioning on top of that?
2) OR is it going to be implemented in such a way that we can choose to partition on ONE FIELD ONLY, either being time or something else?
We need scenario 1 :)!
I have one important question though regarding this new feature. Is it going to be implemented in such a way that we have the option to:
1) Select any column / field for partitioning BUT ALSO KEEP the time based partitioning on top of that?
2) OR is it going to be implemented in such a way that we can choose to partition on ONE FIELD ONLY, either being time or something else?
We need scenario 1 :)!
da...@archive.ittybittyapps.com
Currently looking into doing 90000 different tables. Getting Scenario 1 as described above would allow us to just use 1.
da...@archive.ittybittyapps.com
We are currently doing a controlled alpha release for date/timestamp column based partitioning. Development is actively underway on scenario (1) that you outlined above. I don't have a good ETA to provide at this point, unfortunately.
si...@gmail.com
I do not understand as we already have time based partitioning?
I agree this on is a partial duplicate ofhttps://issuetracker.google.com/issues/35905817
HOWEVER, that one mentions partitioning on another field than datetime.
Scenario 1 I describe here in my previous comment would imply keeping the datetime partitioning, but added to that the possibility to partition on an additional field (or fields even).
Like you can do in a 'traditional RDBMS' that supports partitioning on multiple columns...
I agree this on is a partial duplicate of
HOWEVER, that one mentions partitioning on another field than datetime.
Scenario 1 I describe here in my previous comment would imply keeping the datetime partitioning, but added to that the possibility to partition on an additional field (or fields even).
Like you can do in a 'traditional RDBMS' that supports partitioning on multiple columns...
si...@gmail.com
I believe that refers to partitioning on a user date field as opposed to the hardcoded `_PARTITIONTIME`
st...@gmail.com
Comment has been deleted.
st...@gmail.com
Only arbitrary integers (ie, not strings)?
st...@gmail.com
I 2nd that last question, why not strings? With int only I would not want to call it real 'multi-level partitioning '...
Description
Example:
<ViewStub
android:id="@+id/..."
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:layout="@layout/..."
android:visibility="visible"
tools:background="#3300ff00"/>
As you can see, I tried to force it to create the layout, using the visibility, as suggested here:
It seems this works only at runtime. I want to just show it in design time, which is why I would have changed it to "app:visibility" later, but even the normal "android:visibility" doesn't work.
Please allow to show ViewStub in the UI designer and preview.
Maybe even add a new tag for views that will be ignored for the app itself, yet still be shown in the UI designer.