| From: | Doug Hunley <doug(dot)hunley(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: cluster on conditional index? |
| Date: | 2012-08-15 13:43:07 |
| Message-ID: | CALxYTP4WM2BGqkLKq04Tt+BX2D5gf43r8AEtQzhAnvTiBnhdDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM, ktm(at)rice(dot)edu <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> It probably has to do with the fact that a conditional index, does
> not include every possible row in the table. Although, a "cluster" of
> the matching rows and then leave the rest in place, should work. How
> is that for hand-waving. :)
>
That actually makes sense to me. Cluster the rows covered by that
index, let the rest fall where they may. I'm typically only accessing
the rows covered by that index, so I'd get the benefit of the cluster
command but wouldn't have to spend cycles doing the cluster for rows I
don't care about.
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug(dot)hunley(at)gmail(dot)com)
Twitter: @hunleyd Web:
douglasjhunley.com
G+: http://goo.gl/sajR3
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2012-08-15 19:13:19 | Re: 7k records into Sort node, 4.5m out? |
| Previous Message | ktm@rice.edu | 2012-08-14 17:29:10 | Re: cluster on conditional index? |