...and to clarify, answers should be what you'd like to see for 5.0 specifically
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 1:36 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: > [POLL] Centralize existing syntax or create new syntax? > > 1.) CREATE INDEX ... USING .... WITH OPTIONS... > 2.) CREATE LOCAL INDEX ... USING ... WITH OPTIONS... (same as 1, but > adds LOCAL keyword for clarity and separation from future GLOBAL indexes) > > (In both cases, we deprecate w/ client warnings CREATE CUSTOM INDEX) > > > [POLL] Should there be a default? (YES/NO) > > > [POLL] What do do with the default? > > 1.) Allow a default, and switch it to SAI (no configurables) > 2.) Allow a default, and stay w/ the legacy 2i (no configurables) > 3.) YAML config to override default index (legacy 2i remains the default) > 4.) YAML config/guardrail to require index type selection (not required by > default) > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:39 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >>> Given it seems most DBs have a default index (see Postgres, etc.), I >>> tend to lean toward having one, but that's me... >>> >> >> >> I'm for it too. Would be nice to enforce the setting is >> globally uniform to avoid the per-node problem. Or add a keyspace option. >> >> For users replaying <5 DDLs this would just require they set the default >> index to 2i. >> This is not a headache, it's a one-off action that can be clearly >> expressed in NEWS. >> It acts as a deprecation warning too. >> This prevents new uneducated users from creating the unintended index, >> it supports existing users, and it does not present SAI as the >> battle-tested default. >> >> Agree with the poll, there's a number of different PoVs here already. >> I'm not fond of the LOCAL addition, I appreciate what it informs, but it's >> just not important enough IMHO (folk should be reading up on the index >> type). >> >
