| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hayk Manukyan <manukyantt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature request for adoptive indexes |
| Date: | 2021-10-26 22:45:36 |
| Message-ID: | 178328.1635288336@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> For three separate indexes, an update or delete of a single row in the indexed table would surely require changing at least three pages in the indexes. For some as-yet-ill-defined combined index type, perhaps the three entries in the index would fall on the same index page often enough to reduce the I/O cost of the action?
Of course, we have that today from the solution of one index with the
extra columns "included". I think the OP has completely failed to make
any case why that's not a good enough approach.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Brindle | 2021-10-26 22:47:31 | [PATCH] Conflation of member/privs for predefined roles |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-26 22:31:05 | Re: Assorted improvements in pg_dump |