Re: vacuum vs vacuum full
От | Laurenz Albe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: vacuum vs vacuum full |
Дата | |
Msg-id | da652dd72d8c1b08f01c131ac2a98dcc0df96b1b.camel@cybertec.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: vacuum vs vacuum full (Thomas Kellerer <shammat@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: vacuum vs vacuum full
Re: vacuum vs vacuum full |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 10:57 +0100, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > > No matter how long it takes, this is an excellent argument for > > partitioning Very Large Tables: many maintenance tasks are made > > *much* easier. > > The problem is, you can't partition every table as long as Postgres > does not support a primary key that is independent of the partitioning key > (i.e. until it has "global indexes" as they are called in Oracle) I personally hope that we will never have global indexes. I am not looking forward to helping customers with the problems that they create (long duration of ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION, index fragmentation). Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: