There seems to be a common lifecycle of indexes within applications. First you start off with almost none, maybe a few on primary keys
Not to be rude or anything but I hope he doesn't mean this.
Every single postgres primary key (and unique constraint) automatically gets an index. That's how the unique constraint is implemented. Primary keys being naturally unique.
I would agree IFF there wasn't the 'maybe'. If that word wasn't there I would read it as having not many tables in the beginning and thus not many primary keys and thus not many primary key indices.
I don't disagree, but Mr. Kersteins has quite the track record of Postgres excellence, so he gets every benefit of the doubt from me. I feel quite certain he understands how primary keys work! I'm sure this was just a miswording.
Fair enough. I don't know him though (never heard the name) and after skimming through the first paragraphs of each item and reading this I closed the window instantly as for me it invalidated the information where I had no in depth knowledge myself. As in 'how can I trust any of the rest if something so fundamental is off'.
Very unfortunate if what you say is true. I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt then and go read the rest.
I don't know the author, but when I read an article by someone who obviously knows something about Postgres (knowing something about Postgres myself), I feel it's much more likely that they made a slight language error.
Every single postgres primary key (and unique constraint) automatically gets an index. That's how the unique constraint is implemented. Primary keys being naturally unique.