Gurjeet Singh wrote:
One of the advantages
of breaking up your data into partitions, as professed by Simon (I think)
(and I agree), is that you have smaller indexes, which improve performance.
And maybe having one huge index managing the uniqueness across partitioned
data just defeats the idea of data partitioning!
Isn't "large indexes are a performance problem" just saying
"we don't implement indexes very well"? And why are they
a problem - surely a tree-structured index is giving you
range-partitioned subsets as you traverse it? Why is this
different from manual partitioning into (inherited) tables?
Thanks,
Jeremy
