| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Bitmapscan changes |
| Date: | 2007-03-21 17:27:50 |
| Message-ID: | 46016B16.6080205@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Right. My understanding is that the clustered index will gradually
> degrade to a normal btree, is that correct heikki?
That's right.
> We could of course resolve this by doing a reindex.
Not reindex, but cluster. How clustered the index can be depends on the
clusteredness of the heap.
> The other item I think this would be great for is fairly static tables.
> Think about tables that are children of partitions that haven't been
> touched in 6 months. Why are we wasting space with them?
By touched, you mean updated, right? Yes, it's particularly suitable for
static tables, since once you cluster them, they stay clustered.
Log-tables that are only inserted to, in monotonically increasing key
order, also stay clustered naturally.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-21 17:29:54 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-21 17:27:49 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2007-03-21 18:43:20 | Re: [PATCHES] Bitmapscan changes |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-21 16:22:58 | Re: [PATCHES] Bitmapscan changes |