Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> One of the advantages
> of breaking up your data into partitions, as professed by Simon (I think)
> (and I agree), is that you have smaller indexes, which improve performance.
> And maybe having one huge index managing the uniqueness across partitioned
> data just defeats the idea of data partitioning!
Isn't "large indexes are a performance problem" just saying
"we don't implement indexes very well"? And why are they
a problem - surely a tree-structured index is giving you
range-partitioned subsets as you traverse it? Why is this
different from manual partitioning into (inherited) tables?
Thanks,
Jeremy
