On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 05:14:51PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > Also, it seems indirect indexes would be useful for indexing columns
> > that are not updated frequently on tables that are updated frequently,
> > and whose primary key is not updated frequently. That's quite a logic
> > problem for users to understand.
> >
>
> Which covers like 99.9% of problematic cases I see on daily basis.
>
> And by that logic we should not have indexes at all, they are not
> automatically created and user needs to think about if they need them or
> not.
Do you have to resort to extreme statements to make your point? The use
of indexes is clear to most users, while the use of indirect indexes
would not be, as I stated earlier.
> Also helping user who does not have performance problem by 1% is very
> different from helping user who has performance problem by 50% even if
> she needs to think about the solution a bit.
>
> WARM can do WARM update 50% of time, indirect index can do HOT update
> 100% of time (provided the column is not changed), I don't see why we
> could not have both solutions.
We don't know enough about the limits of WARM to say it is limited to
50%.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
