On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:30:31AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> DB2 looks good. I have horrid, horrid memories of wrestling with the
> Oracle "extent" madness.
I do think that it's worth providing additional access points to
tablespaces, though. That is, it would make sense to me to allow
"CREATE INDEX indexname IN spacename", instead of attaching an
indexspace to a table.
This is especially true with postgresql, since i've seen more than one
proposal for multi-table indices. If we're spacing indices based on
the table, it's unclear where a given multi-table index should go.
It would also allow for other flexibilities, like putting join indices
(on foreign keys) in one tablespace, with indices for aggregation or
sorting in another tablespace.
So, my vote, as a non-code-contributing member, would be for a
DB2-style syntax, without the "INDEX IN" and "LONG IN" extensions, but
with the ability to put indices explicitly into a tablespace.
-johnnnnnn
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
