> > As you may have noticed, I've put significant effort to focus the > discussion on my actual question: the "global index" (which btw I didn't > know is called this way here - if I new, I'd probably could have google > it instead). This was intentional. I like my schema design very much and > I'm unwilling to part with it. > > > no, it doesn't. > > T1 is empty. It's just a head of inheritance tree. > > There is no guarantee (index on T1 will have no entries). But naturally > there are ways to "smartly" partition the ID space allocated to > subtables of T1. > > OK. Wow, that's sure not how I read the docs on inheritance, but I've never used the construct thinking it was largely syntactic sugar on master/detail based scheme designs. But since you're wed irrevocably to your scheme design, I'll bow out of this discussion. All the best, rjs -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
