| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "heikki(dot)linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Global Index |
| Date: | 2019-10-31 18:50:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20191031185035.GZ6962@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Peter Geoghegan (pg(at)bowt(dot)ie) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:23 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Well, the *effects* of the feature seem desirable, but that doesn't
> > mean that we want an implementation that actually has a shared index.
> > As soon as you do that, you've thrown away most of the benefits of
> > having a partitioned data structure in the first place.
>
> Right, but that's only the case for the global index. Global indexes
> are useful when used judiciously. They enable the use of partitioning
> for use cases where not being able to enforce uniqueness across all
> partitions happens to be a deal breaker. I bet that this is fairly
> common.
Absolutely- our lack of such is a common point of issue when folks are
considering using or migrating to PostgreSQL.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Isaac Morland | 2019-10-31 19:02:40 | Re: Proposal: Global Index |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-10-31 18:48:21 | Removing alignment padding for byval types |