| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tuomas Leikola <tuomas(dot)leikola(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: uniqueness and null could benefit from a hint for dba |
| Date: | 2019-10-24 14:31:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20191024143144.GE8650@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 02:35:02PM +0300, Tuomas Leikola wrote:
> That is a nice design. You can create a regular unique index where columns(s)s
> are not null and then filtered index(es) for the cases where some of the unique
> columns are null.
>
> However my point, specifically, was that if the document in question would have
> offered alternative solutions, I personally would have been saved from some
> frustration and an exercise in bad index design (I had 5 nullables that need
> uniqueness for the null as well). Maybe it would help someone else.
Uh, I am wondering if it is just too details for our docs. Can you
think of some text and its location?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2019-10-24 15:17:06 | Instead of using the bloom index, a parallel sequencial scan is used with this example |
| Previous Message | PG Doc comments form | 2019-10-24 13:06:45 | wal_sender_timeout / wal_receiver_timeout - seconds or milliseconds? |