On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:05:43PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:25 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Once you layer on all the places a global index will be worse than just > > creating a single large table, or a partitioned table with an index per > > child, there might not be much usefulness left. A POC patch might tell > > us that, and might allow us to mark it as "not wanted". > > I'm confused. Of course it's true to some degree that having a global > index "defeats the purpose" of having a partitioned table. But only to > a degree. And for some users it will make the difference between using > partitioning and not using partitioning -- they simply won't be able > to tolerate not having it available (e.g. because of a requirement for > a unique constraint that does not cover the partitioning key).
Yes, that is a good point. For those cases, I think we need to look at the code complexity/overhead of supporting that feature. There are going to be a few cases it is a win, but will the code complexity be worth it? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
