From: | Vik Reykja <vikreykja(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:58:11 |
Message-ID: | CALDgxVs9N3K4sD_oOs5Wjt3neyNHE2U=_3AV6c3QW2=BaJiD+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 18:24, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> +1
>
> Very useful
>
>
Semi-private note to Simon: isn't this pretty much what I was advocating at
the London meetup last month?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-05-22 20:15:45 | Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-22 19:49:45 | Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns of an index |