If at some point in the glorious future we have global indexes, I'm sure we can add GLOBAL to the syntax...sry, working on an ugly poll...
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 1:24 PM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > If folk should be reading up on the index type, doesn’t that conflict with > your support of a default? > > Should there be different global and local defaults, once we have global > indexes, or should we always default to a local index? Or a global one? > > On 12 May 2023, at 18:39, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> >> Given it seems most DBs have a default index (see Postgres, etc.), I tend >> to lean toward having one, but that's me... >> > > > I'm for it too. Would be nice to enforce the setting is globally uniform > to avoid the per-node problem. Or add a keyspace option. > > For users replaying <5 DDLs this would just require they set the default > index to 2i. > This is not a headache, it's a one-off action that can be clearly > expressed in NEWS. > It acts as a deprecation warning too. > This prevents new uneducated users from creating the unintended index, it > supports existing users, and it does not present SAI as the battle-tested > default. > > Agree with the poll, there's a number of different PoVs here already. I'm > not fond of the LOCAL addition, I appreciate what it informs, but it's > just not important enough IMHO (folk should be reading up on the index > type). > >
