| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum vs vacuum full |
| Date: | 2020-11-18 12:02:25 |
| Message-ID: | da652dd72d8c1b08f01c131ac2a98dcc0df96b1b.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 10:57 +0100, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> > No matter how long it takes, this is an excellent argument for
> > partitioning Very Large Tables: many maintenance tasks are made
> > *much* easier.
>
> The problem is, you can't partition every table as long as Postgres
> does not support a primary key that is independent of the partitioning key
> (i.e. until it has "global indexes" as they are called in Oracle)
I personally hope that we will never have global indexes.
I am not looking forward to helping customers with the problems that
they create (long duration of ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION, index fragmentation).
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-11-18 12:07:10 | Re: autovacuum recommendations for Large tables |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-11-18 11:58:45 | Re: pg_upgrade from 12 to 13 failes with plpython2 |