Re: vacuum vs vacuum full - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Laurenz Albe
Subject Re: vacuum vs vacuum full
Date
Msg-id da652dd72d8c1b08f01c131ac2a98dcc0df96b1b.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum vs vacuum full  (Thomas Kellerer <shammat@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: vacuum vs vacuum full  (Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmail.com>)
Re: vacuum vs vacuum full  (Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>)
List 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




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade from 12 to 13 failes with plpython2
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum recommendations for Large tables