Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, 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 14:28:04
Message-ID: 20060428142804.GC15566@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:14:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here I think it would be best to add an indclusterable column to pg_am.
> Actually, does clustering on *any* current index type except btree make
> sense? None of them have semantically interesting index ordering
> AFAIR, so maybe we should just reject CLUSTER on all of 'em not only GIN.

It seems to me that amorderstrategy already handles this? It's
documented as:

zero if the index offers no sort order, otherwise the strategy number
of the strategy operator that describes the sort order

ergo, if this is non-zero, CLUSTER uses that to sort, otherwise CLUSTER
is forbidden.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2006-04-28 14:44:51 Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-04-28 14:14:09 Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.