On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 12:37, Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > personally, I feel this design is very bad compared to other DB servers. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here as you didn't quote it, but my guess is you mean our lack of global index support. Generally, there's not all that much consensus in the community that this would be a good feature to have. Why do people want to use partitioning? Many people do it so that they can quickly remove data that's no longer required with a simple DETACH operation. This is metadata only and is generally very fast. Another set of people partition as their tables are very large and they become much easier to manage when broken down into parts. There's also a group of people who do it for the improved data locality. Unfortunately, if we had a global index feature then that requires building a single index over all partitions. DETACH is no longer a metadata-only operation as we must somehow invalidate or remove tuples that belong to the detached partition. The group of people who partitioned to get away from very large tables now have a very large index. Maybe the only group to get off lightly here are the data locality group. They'll still have the same data locality on the heap. So in short, many of the benefits of partitioning disappear when you have a global index. So, why did you partition your data in the first place? If you feel like you wouldn't mind having a large global index over all partitions then maybe you're better off just using a non-partitioned table to store this data. David
