From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns of an index |
Date: | 2012-05-22 17:41:00 |
Message-ID: | 4064.1337708460@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
> composite index which has the primary key or a unique key as the
> prefix column(s) but with extra columns after that. Currently you
> would also need another index with exactly the primary/unique key,
> which seems like a waste of storage and maintenance.
> Should there be a way to declare a "unique" index with the unique
> property applying to a prefix of the indexed columns/expression? And
> having that, a way to turn that prefix into a primary key constraint?
> Of course this is easier said then done, but is there some reason for
> it not to be a to-do item?
Um ... other than it being ugly as sin? I can't say that I can get
excited about this concept. It'd be better to work on index-organized
tables, which is really more or less what you're wishing for here.
Duplicating most of a table into an index is always going to be a loser
in the end because of the redundant storage.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-22 17:43:11 | Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-22 17:36:20 | Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns of an index |