Hi Shayon Thank you for your work on this , I think it's great to have this feature implemented ,I checked the doucment on other databases,It seems both MySQL 8.0 and oracle supports it, sql server need to rebuild indexes after disabled,It seems disable the index, it's equivalent to deleting the index, except that the index's metadata is still retained: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17952_01/mysql-8.0-en/invisible-indexes.html https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/alter-index-transact-sql?view=sql-server-ver16 https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/19/sqlrf/ALTER-INDEX.html ->A disabled index would still receive updates and enforce constraints as usual but would not be used for queries. This allows users to assess -> ->whether an index impacts query performance before deciding to drop it entirely. MySQL 8.0 and oracle settings are not visible, index information is always updated, I would then suggest that the statement be changed to set the index invisible and visible.
Thanks David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> 于2024年9月10日周二 06:17写道： > On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 09:39, Shayon Mukherjee <shay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Adding and removing indexes is a common operation in PostgreSQL. On > larger databases, however, these operations can be resource-intensive. When > evaluating the performance impact of one or more indexes, dropping them > might not be ideal since as a user you may want a quicker way to test their > effects without fully committing to removing & adding them back again. > Which can be a time taking operation on larger tables. > > > > Proposal: > > I propose adding an ALTER INDEX command that allows for enabling or > disabling an index globally. This could look something like: > > > > ALTER INDEX index_name ENABLE; > > ALTER INDEX index_name DISABLE; > > > > A disabled index would still receive updates and enforce constraints as > usual but would not be used for queries. This allows users to assess > whether an index impacts query performance before deciding to drop it > entirely. > > I personally think having some way to alter an index to stop it from > being used in query plans would be very useful for the reasons you > mentioned. I don't have any arguments against the syntax you've > proposed. We'd certainly have to clearly document that constraints > are still enforced. Perhaps there is some other syntax which would > self-document slightly better. I just can't think of it right now. > > > Implementation: > > To keep this simple, I suggest toggling the indisvalid flag in pg_index > during the enable/disable operation. > > That's not a good idea as it would allow ALTER INDEX ... ENABLE; to be > used to make valid a failed concurrently created index. I think this > would need a new flag and everywhere in the planner would need to be > adjusted to ignore indexes when that flag is false. > > > Additional Considerations: > > - Keeping the index up-to-date while it’s disabled seems preferable, as > it avoids the need to rebuild the index if it’s re-enabled later. The > alternative would be dropping and rebuilding the index upon re-enabling, > which I believe would introduce additional overhead in terms of application > logic & complexity. > > I think the primary use case here is to assist in dropping useless > indexes in a way that can very quickly be undone if the index is more > useful than thought. If you didn't keep the index up-to-date then that > would make the feature useless for that purpose. > > If we get the skip scan feature for PG18, then there's likely going to > be lots of people with indexes that they might want to consider > removing after upgrading. Maybe this is a good time to consider this > feature as it possibly won't ever be more useful than it will be after > we get skip scans. > > David > > >
