Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables

"Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I guess nobody has any interest in my proposal, only in the departure of my
> described experience from expected behavior :-(

Well, we certainly should try to understand the unexpected behavior
in detail before we consider solutions. Per Sir A.C. Doyle, it is a
capital mistake to theorize in advance of the data.

(It's probably also worth noting that this community's historical
interest has not been in read-only or even read-mostly data. We'd
not be willing to pay all that MVCC overhead if we thought we were
just a warehouse of static data. If that's what you want, maybe
you need some other DBMS.)

regards, tom lane