Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Shayon Mukherjee
Subject Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX
Date
Msg-id CANqtF-rKPYnMj3x0BVXQyY8k18jtBrvwvOTkYAvK_bYVvcpaOQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX  (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX
List pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 10:53 PM Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com> wrote:
> That seems like a very good location for this advice. But the current
> set of bullet points are all directed towards "... a general procedure
> for determining which indexes to create". I propose that a new paragrph,
> not a bullet point, be added towards the end of that section which
> addresses the options of steps to take before dropping an index.
> Something like the following:

> Thoughts?

This new feature provides the ability to experiment with indexes to
create ( or drop ),
so I don't think it deviates from the purpose of this paragraphs.

This patch will provide the ability for the user to create an index as initially
invisible and a GUC, use_invisible_index if set to TRUE to experiment with
the new index to see if it improves performance. So, I think providing this
pattern to experiment with a new index will fit nicely as a new bulletpoint.



Thank you for the feedback and pointers Sami and Gurjeet. Good call on [0] being a good place for operational advice. I have gone ahead and removed the  advice about "pg_stat_user_indexes.idx_scan" from doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_index.sgml and updated doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml to include a new bullet point with also a reference to use_invisible_index. Let me know how it sounds and if there is any feedback. 

Also, rebased. 

Thank you
Shayon

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW
Next
From: Alena Rybakina
Date:
Subject: Re: Removing unneeded self joins