| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al |
| Date: | 2008-01-28 15:00:05 |
| Message-ID: | 479DEDF5.4090909@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 9:02 AM, in message
>>>>
> <87odb7s45i(dot)fsf(at)oxford(dot)xeocode(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Perhaps we should have some form of escape hatch for pg_dump to request real
>> physical order when dumping clustered tables.
>>
>
> It would seem reasonable to me for pg_dump to use ORDER BY to select
> data from clustered tables.
>
> I don't see a general case for worrying about the order of rows
> returned by queries which lack an ORDER BY clause.
>
>
>
What will be the performance hit from doing that?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-01-28 15:23:13 | Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-01-28 14:55:41 | Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al |