Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal
Date: 2008-09-04 02:28:05
Message-ID: 1220495285.4371.819.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 00:25 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:

> One thing that's been annoying me for a while is that our CLUSTER
> implementation is really very slow. When I say very slow I mean it's really
> very very very slow.

Does this implementation work towards being able to do
So that we can do both actions with just one sort of the data?

I think there needs to be an option to force this to do either sorts or
indexscans. On a large table you may not have the space to perform a
full table sort, plus on a multi-column index we may not accurately
predict the cost of an indexscan.

(What is the change to elog.c about?)

Simon Riggs
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Treat 2008-09-04 03:15:00 Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-04 02:06:42 Re: hash index improving v3