4 ms·
That is what was mentioned as "global indexes" in this discussion. The problem with this approach is twofold - firstly it negates many of the partitioning benef
by pgaddict 8y ago
That is what was mentioned as "global indexes" in this discussion. The problem with this approach is twofold - firstly it negates many of the partitioning benefits (e.g. removing data is not merely a DROP PARTITION but you have to walk the global structure), secondly it requires fairly significant surgery in the indexes (that now point to rows in a single table, and so [block,item] is enough, but global indexes will require [partition,block,item]).
- anarazel 8y ago> so [block,item] is enough, but global indexes will require [partition,block,item]). That's probably the easier bit, I'd guess that adjusting a lot of the relevant in-memory structures to share relations, uniqueness checks across relations, adjusting the locking-model to deal with multiple underlying relations etc. is going to be more work.