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

Re: I: 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: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-07-06 07:52:27
Message-ID: 20100706165226.9734.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:

> Attached the updated patch (should solve a bug) and a script.

I reviewed your patch. It seems to be in good shape, and worked as
expected. I suppressed a compiler warning in the patch and cleaned up
whitespaces in it. Patch attached.

I think we need some documentation for the change. The only downside
of the feature is that sorted cluster requires twice disk spaces of
the target table (temp space for disk sort and the result table).
Could I ask you to write documentation about the new behavior?
Also, code comments can be improved; especially we need better
description than "copy&paste from FormIndexDatum".

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


Attachment: sorted_cluster-20100706.patch
Description: application/octet-stream (24.8 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Leonardo FDate: 2010-07-06 09:31:39
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2010-07-06 07:22:14
Subject: Bug? Concurrent COMMENT ON and DROP object

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