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

Re: Loss of cluster status

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Loss of cluster status
Date: 2003-02-24 02:33:33
Message-ID: 21190.1046054013@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> A CLUSTER command issued just after table creation, while it's still
>> empty, would be cheap ... but we don't put the index in place until
>> we've loaded the data, do we?  Darn.

> Maybe we should issue it after the CREATE INDEX and ADD CONSTRAINT has
> occurred and just bite it.

The real problem I think is that we've confused the notion of setting a
policy for CLUSTER (ie, marking the preferred thing to cluster on) with
the notion of actually doing a CLUSTER.  Perhaps we need an ALTER
command that says "this is what to cluster on" without actually doing
it.

> Other potential problem - ALTER TABLE / SET STORAGE ?

Yeah, pg_dump should be dumping that too, probably.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-24 03:29:22
Subject: Re: Loss of cluster status
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-24 02:21:55
Subject: Re: Loss of cluster status

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