On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 03:28:38PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 2:03 PM Nikita Malakhov <huku...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Global Indexes is a very interesting functionality that has both > > significant advantages > > and drawbacks, and the community seems not ready to accept it without very > > strong > > motivation. > > I understand that this is a hard problem and needs changes in many > critical modules. I don't think there should be a problem with the > motivation of this work, but I believe the main issue lies in the > project's complexity. ... > In general, users ideally wouldn't use a global index everywhere. It > really comes down to their specific use case – they should only opt > for a global index when they can't effectively partition their data > without one. The idea is that the amount of data in the sort space > should essentially be the same as if the table wasn't partitioned at > all. That's a good point for consideration. I agree that global > indexes shouldn't be a default choice for every use case. They're most > beneficial when a user's data access patterns inherently prevent > effective partitioning without them. In such scenarios, the amount of > data in the sort space would ideally remain comparable to an > unpartitioned table.
There are certainly use cases where this would be helpful, but I think the big question is whether it would have so many negatives that most people who try to use it would eventually remove it. I have heard that happened to other relational systems who support global indexes, so I think we have to consider that possibility. The problem is you might need to actually write the patch to find out. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
