Re: Proposal: Global Index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Proposal: Global Index
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzmDfZBhTArKQK027r+jta0kMwfRcD3c9zpZEtoh3meK3w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Global Index  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Global Index  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:25 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Global Index
Next
From: Victor Yegorov
Date:
Subject: Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits