Re: [HACKERS] Highly Variable Planning Times

> TBH, I see no convincing explanation in that article of why 1300 partial
> indexes are a good idea.

I don't like it much either. I've been trying to eliminate most of the
need for the partial indexes, but this is the current state of things.

> *At best*, you're doing substantial work in the
> planner to avoid the first tree descent step or two in a single
> non-partial index.

While the specific example I gave in the post could be replaced with a
non-partial index, most of the partial indexes contain predicates that
are not straightforward to index with non-partial indexes. About 85%
of the partial indexes contain a regular expression in them for CSS
selector matching. I've tried using a trigram GIN index, but it wound
up not working too well due to the data being highly redundant (almost
every CSS hierarchy contains 'div' in it).