Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: global index

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Chris Travers
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: global index
Дата
Msg-id CAN-RpxD4c+CW9anWe8FSAznbeNenPeHWKTri+HhDRr-JZSk6LA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: global index  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: global index  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,

On 2017-08-18 12:12:58 +0300, Ildar Musin wrote:
> While we've been developing pg_pathman extension one of the most frequent
> questions we got from our users was about global index support. We cannot
> provide it within an extension. And I couldn't find any recent discussion
> about someone implementing it. So I'm thinking about giving it a shot and
> start working on a patch for postgres.

FWIW, I personally think for constraints the better approach is to make
the constraint checking code cope with having to check multiple
indexes. Initially by just checking all indexes, over the longer term
perhaps pruning the set of to-be-checked indexes based on the values in
the partition key if applicable.   The problem with creating huge global
indexes is that you give away some the major advantages of partitioning:
- dropping partitions now is slow / leaves a lof of garbage again
- there's no way you can do this with individual partitions being remote
  or such
- there's a good chunk of locality loss in global indexes

The logic we have for exclusion constraints checking can essentially be
extended to do uniqueness checking over multiple partitions. Depending
on the desired deadlock behaviour one might end up doing speculative
insertions in addition.  The foreign key constraint checking is fairly
simple, essentially one "just" need to remove the ONLY from the
generated check query.


To be clear, this would still require a high-level concept of a global index and the only question is whether it gets stored as multiple partitions against partitioned tables vs stored in one giant index, right?

Also for foreign key constraints, does it make sense, for backwards-compatibility reasons to introduce a new syntax for checking all child tables?

 

Greetings,

Andres Freund


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



--
Best Regards,
Chris Travers
Database Administrator

Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com 
Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: vinayak
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] ECPG: WHENEVER statement with DO CONTINUE action
Следующее
От: Ioseph Kim
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] locale problem of bgworker: logical replicationlauncher and worker process