Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.
Date: 2006-04-28 15:53:05
Message-ID: 1486.1146239585@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
>> Huh?  Why two?  Either you are allowed to cluster on indexes of this
>> type, or you're not.  I don't see the point of any other distinction.

> amclusterable - as you suggest: Does cluster command  something or not?

This is what we need.

> amclustered   - table on such index is always clustered, cluster command does
>                  nothing, but optimizer/planner takes clustering into
>                  consideration for query planning.

"Takes clustering into account" means nothing.  We don't need that.  Any
such consideration would be handled by the AM-specific amcostestimate
function.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2006-04-28 16:09:40
Subject: Re: Logging pg_autovacuum
Previous:From: Teodor SigaevDate: 2006-04-28 15:44:36
Subject: Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group