On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 17:15, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > Also I think we need to enhance ALTER INDEX to assign new table spaces > > > for indexes. Assigning different tables spaces for tables and indexes > > > are essential to gain more I/O speed IMO. > > > > I thought about this. ALTER INDEX doesn't exist yet and I figured that, > > unlike the case of tables, its easy to drop and recreate indexes in new > > tablespaces. > > Oh you are right. I forgot about CREATE INDEX ... TABLESPACE. > > > I'm still stumped as to where I am corrupting memory with this patch > > though. (There was another bug: I wasn't detecting the case where users > > set tablespace to the tablespace that the table is already in).
On a related note, will there be a way to have implicit index creation occur in a seperate table space automagically? I.e. create table test (id int4 primary key, n1 int unique); so that the indexes created in id and n1 here would have a different default namespace than the table? Just wondering. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
