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

Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-01-21 08:34:20
Message-ID: 20100121173419.D19E.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:

> Anyone? I'd like some feedback before moving on to do the seq scan + sort in those
> CLUSTER cases where "use_index_scan" returns false...

+1 for CLUSTER using sort.

I have a couple of comments for the current implementation:
 * Do we need to disable sort-path for tables clustered on a gist index?
 * I'd prefer to separate cost calculation routines from create_index_path()
   and cost_sort(), rather than using a dummy planner.

Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-01-21 08:35:55
Subject: Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown
Previous:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2010-01-21 08:31:14
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

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