| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Indirect indexes |
| Date: | 2016-10-20 14:09:12 |
| Message-ID: | 2a89563d-99d0-f304-1b0f-1f33bac4fd62@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/20/2016 06:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian 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.
>
> I don't think we should be optimizing only for dumb users. In any case,
> updating primary key values is very rare; some would say it never
> happens.
Just because a person doesn't understand a use case doesn't make them dumb.
That said would it be possible to make this index an extension (like
rum?). Assuming of course we can get any required infrastructure changes
done in a general way.
I do think the feature has merit.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-20 14:12:38 | Re: Remove autovacuum GUC? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-10-20 14:04:37 | Re: Indirect indexes |