| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 曾文旌 <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com>, "heikki(dot)linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>, "Nasby, Jim" <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Global Index |
| Date: | 2021-01-11 20:05:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmDfZBhTArKQK027r+jta0kMwfRcD3c9zpZEtoh3meK3w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:25 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Once you layer on all the places a global index will be worse than just
> creating a single large table, or a partitioned table with an index per
> child, there might not be much usefulness left. A POC patch might tell
> us that, and might allow us to mark it as "not wanted".
I'm confused. Of course it's true to some degree that having a global
index "defeats the purpose" of having a partitioned table. But only to
a degree. And for some users it will make the difference between using
partitioning and not using partitioning -- they simply won't be able
to tolerate not having it available (e.g. because of a requirement for
a unique constraint that does not cover the partitioning key).
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Victor Yegorov | 2021-01-11 20:19:25 | Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-01-11 19:25:55 | Re: Proposal: Global Index |