On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:30:31AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > DB2 looks good. I have horrid, horrid memories of wrestling with the > Oracle "extent" madness.
I do think that it's worth providing additional access points to tablespaces, though. That is, it would make sense to me to allow "CREATE INDEX indexname IN spacename", instead of attaching an indexspace to a table. This is especially true with postgresql, since i've seen more than one proposal for multi-table indices. If we're spacing indices based on the table, it's unclear where a given multi-table index should go. It would also allow for other flexibilities, like putting join indices (on foreign keys) in one tablespace, with indices for aggregation or sorting in another tablespace. So, my vote, as a non-code-contributing member, would be for a DB2-style syntax, without the "INDEX IN" and "LONG IN" extensions, but with the ability to put indices explicitly into a tablespace. -johnnnnnn ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match