On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:38:10PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > More broadly, I don't share Bruce's negativity about indirect indexes. > My estimate of what needs to be done for them to be really useful is - > I think - higher than your estimate of what needs to be done, but I > think the concept is great. I also think that some of the concepts - > like allowing the tuple pointers to have widths other than 6 byes - > could turn out to be a good foundation for global indexes in the > future. In fact, it might be considerably easier to make an indirect > index span a partitioning hierarchy than it would be to do the same > for a regular index. But regardless of that, the feature is good for > what it offers today.
I am worried that indirect indexes might have such limited usefulness with a well-designed WARM feature that the syntax/feature would be useless for 99% of users. In talking to Alexander Korotkov, he mentioned that indirect indexes could be used for global/cross-partition indexes, and for index-organized tables (heap and index together in a single file). This would greatly expand the usefulness of indirect indexes and would be exciting. -- 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