On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 05:14:51PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > Also, it seems indirect indexes would be useful for indexing columns > > that are not updated frequently on tables that are updated frequently, > > and whose primary key is not updated frequently. That's quite a logic > > problem for users to understand. > > > > Which covers like 99.9% of problematic cases I see on daily basis. > > And by that logic we should not have indexes at all, they are not > automatically created and user needs to think about if they need them or > not.
Do you have to resort to extreme statements to make your point? The use of indexes is clear to most users, while the use of indirect indexes would not be, as I stated earlier. > Also helping user who does not have performance problem by 1% is very > different from helping user who has performance problem by 50% even if > she needs to think about the solution a bit. > > WARM can do WARM update 50% of time, indirect index can do HOT update > 100% of time (provided the column is not changed), I don't see why we > could not have both solutions. We don't know enough about the limits of WARM to say it is limited to 50%. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers