Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date: 2018-01-04 17:00:58
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZeiJ7oh3O4kQ9aS2ti5c=90tyHO98TKtujWcjBGa4wzg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm not sure why this feature of automatically picking up matching
> indexes even exists. Is it for some specific workflows or upgrade
> scenarios? It's kind of a surprising feature in a way.

It allows you to avoid building a new indexes unnecessarily when
attaching a partition.

> The catalog representations of partitioned tables and partitioned
> indexes are completely different, which may or may not be desirable.

How so?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-01-04 17:11:37 Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-01-04 16:59:09 Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins.