[POLL] Centralize existing syntax or create new syntax? 1.) CREATE INDEX ... USING .... WITH OPTIONS... 2.) CREATE LOCAL INDEX ... USING ... WITH OPTIONS... (same as 1, but adds LOCAL keyword for clarity and separation from future GLOBAL indexes)
(In both cases, we deprecate w/ client warnings CREATE CUSTOM INDEX) [POLL] Should there be a default? (YES/NO) [POLL] What do do with the default? 1.) Allow a default, and switch it to SAI (no configurables) 2.) Allow a default, and stay w/ the legacy 2i (no configurables) 3.) YAML config to override default index (legacy 2i remains the default) 4.) YAML config/guardrail to require index type selection (not required by default) On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:39 PM 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). >
