Mark Dilger <[email protected]> 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
