I really like the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY suggestion that I've seem in this
thread. That seems like a good alternative to ONLINE and is very easy to
understand.
Regards,
Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Better-name-syntax-for-%22online%22-index-creation-tf199299
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-26 kell 13:23, kirjutas Gregory Stark:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-26 kell 06:40, kirjutas Gregory S Stark:
> > > The DB2 handbook says "Tables can now be reorganized online with almost
> > > full
> > > acess to t
Yeah, your probably right. :)
On 7/26/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Silveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> If I didn't know anything about PostgreSQL and read a manual about it's
> indexing capabilities and read that it had ONLINE reindexing, the first> thing that I would think ab
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ãhel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-26 kell 06:40, kirjutas Gregory S Stark:
> > The DB2 handbook says "Tables can now be reorganized online with almost full
> > acess to the table allowed" but their syntax does not use the word "online".
>
> Does this reo
Gregory Start wrote:
>
> Fwiw a few data points:
>
> MSSQL uses (WITH ONLINE=ON) much like we and Oracle use ONLINE tacked
> on to the
> end of the create index command.
>
Where did you find this? I thought my MSDN-foo was pretty good, and I
didn't find this when searched a couple days ago.
R
Paul Silveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I didn't know anything about PostgreSQL and read a manual about it's
> indexing capabilities and read that it had ONLINE reindexing, the first
> thing that I would think about was the ability to rebuild my indexes without
> causing any blocking or writ
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > One thing to think about, what will the command to execute stored
> > procedures look like? Those will also need to be called from outside
> > a transaction.
>
> Huh? Only if you invent your own stored-procedure theory or have
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-26 kell 06:40, kirjutas Gregory S Stark:
> The DB2 handbook says "Tables can now be reorganized online with almost full
> acess to the table allowed" but their syntax does not use the word "online".
Does this reorganizing refer to what we do with CLUSTER ?
I'd really
I understand the negative implications with calling it "ONLINE" with regards
to the index rebuild but I believe that would follow what the industry and
professionals understand. Oracle denotes this concept as ONLINE and
microsoft with it's new SQL Server 2005 markets the ability to do "ONLINE"
re
Quoting Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm fairly dissatisfied with the naming of Greg Stark's proposed new
feature for creating indexes without blocking writers of the table.
To my mind, "ONLINE" just doesn't convey any useful information ---
the existing
"Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a chance that the locking variant will be replaced by
> non-locking variant,
No, I don't think so. Given that the concurrent form is much slower
(extra table scan) and can't be wrapped into a transaction block,
it'll always be a special option.
On 7/25/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-)
> In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although
> the whole feature sounds nice any way you will finally
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> psql could actually tell these apart if it worked just a bit harder.
> CLUSTER with no arguments is the one case, CLUSTER with
> anything after it is the other. Not sure why we couldn't be
> bothered to get that right in psql the first time :-(.
>
Should this go on the
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 11:26, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-)
>
> > In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although
> > the whole feature sounds nice
Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-)
> In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although
> the whole feature sounds nice any way you will finally call it ;-)
That reads well to me too. We'd nee
> Semantically, NOLOCK (or whatever word) seems most closely associated with
> CREATE INDEX, so having it as third word would make sense, and it would be
> quite easy to parse for psql.
>
> Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-)
In this case CREATE INDEX CONC
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 06:55 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > Or maybe CREATE INDEX x ON tab NOLOCK Having the NOLOCK
> > associated with the table name makes sense.
>
> Semantically, NOLOCK (or whatever word) seems most closely associated with
> CREATE INDEX, so havi
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 06:55 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> Or maybe CREATE INDEX x ON tab NOLOCK Having the NOLOCK
> associated with the table name makes sense.
Semantically, NOLOCK (or whatever word) seems most closely associated with
CREATE INDEX, so having it as third word would make sense
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, how about CREATE INDEX x NOLOCK ON tab ... Please don't use it as
> the first word. I am afraid we would regret that.
> Or maybe CREATE INDEX x ON tab NOLOCK Having the NOLOCK
> associated with the table name makes sense.
psql would be a lot h
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Oh, psql needs to know before the command is sent? How do we handle it
> >> now with CLUSTER?
>
> > We don't, which is exactly the problem. If I'm not mistaken, currently
> > psql in autocommit off mode, C
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Oh, psql needs to know before the command is sent? How do we handle it
>> now with CLUSTER?
> We don't, which is exactly the problem. If I'm not mistaken, currently
> psql in autocommit off mode, CLUSTER doesn't start a transac
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Anyway, if you want psql to easily identify it, just return NOLOCK as
> > part of the command string returned:
> >
> > test=> create index i on test(x);
> > CREATE INDEX NOLOCK
>
> Oh, psql needs to know before the command is sent? How do we handle it
> now with
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> > Sorry, hit send too quickly.
> >
> > NOLOCK is kinda like NOWAIT, except implies that the command will not
> > take a strong lock instead of stating that it will not wait for one.
> >
> > On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 11:20 -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > >
Rod Taylor wrote:
> Sorry, hit send too quickly.
>
> NOLOCK is kinda like NOWAIT, except implies that the command will not
> take a strong lock instead of stating that it will not wait for one.
>
> On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 11:20 -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > SHARED CREATE INDEX
I like NOLOC
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > One thing to think about, what will the command to execute stored
> > procedures look like? Those will also need to be called from outside
> > a transaction.
>
> Huh? Only if you invent your own stored-procedure theory or have a
> hitherto unknown
Greg Stark wrote:
> One thing to think about, what will the command to execute stored
> procedures look like? Those will also need to be called from outside
> a transaction.
Huh? Only if you invent your own stored-procedure theory or have a
hitherto unknown interpretation of the SQL standard.
-
Greg Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm also wondering about where in the command the keyword should go.
> > As submitted it's
> >
> > [ WITH ( > class="PARAMETER">storage_parameter = > class="PARAMETER">value [, ... ] ) ]
> > [ TABLESPACE tablespace ]
>
Greg Stark asked:
> I know Oracle calls this "online" index builds. In fact it
> works similarly
> with a single keyword "online" tacked on near the end of the
> create index
> statement.
>
> Anyone know what MSSQL or DB2 call it?
>
I have to live with MSSQL at work, and I didn't remember an
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm fairly dissatisfied with the naming of Greg Stark's proposed new
> feature for creating indexes without blocking writers of the table.
> To my mind, "ONLINE" just doesn't convey any useful information ---
> the existing CREATE INDEX functionality could al
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Montag, 24. Juli 2006 17:13 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> I'm tempted to put the new keyword at the very front:
>>
>> SHARED CREATE INDEX
>>
>> which would probably mean that we'd have to document it as if it were a
>> completely separate command from
Am Montag, 24. Juli 2006 17:13 schrieb Tom Lane:
> To my mind, "ONLINE" just doesn't convey any useful information ---
> the existing CREATE INDEX functionality could already be said to be
> "online", in the sense that you don't have to take down the database
> to do it. I thought about "SHARED" b
Sorry, hit send too quickly.
NOLOCK is kinda like NOWAIT, except implies that the command will not
take a strong lock instead of stating that it will not wait for one.
On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 11:20 -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > SHARED CREATE INDEX
>
> > Comments?
>
> CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX
> SHARED CREATE INDEX
> Comments?
CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX [WITH NOLOCK] ON ...
--
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
33 matches
Mail list logo
