| From: | johnnnnnn <john(at)phaedrusdeinus(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] CLUSTER command |
| Date: | 2002-12-12 22:26:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20021212222641.GA8278@performics.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-interfaces pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:03:56PM -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> I'd vote against changing the existing CLUSTER since the existing
> CLUSTER while not great does handle many different key values fairly
> well as well and this solution wouldn't.
I would agree. What's being proposed sounds much more like table
partitioning than clustering.
That's not to say that the existing CLUSTER couldn't be improved, at
the very least to the point where it allows inserts to respect the
clustered structure. That's a post for another thread, though.
-johnnnnnnnnnnn
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-12-12 22:27:02 | Re: CLUSTER command |
| Previous Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2002-12-12 22:15:37 | Re: CLUSTER command |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-12-12 22:27:02 | Re: CLUSTER command |
| Previous Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2002-12-12 22:15:37 | Re: CLUSTER command |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-12-12 22:27:02 | Re: CLUSTER command |
| Previous Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2002-12-12 22:15:37 | Re: CLUSTER command |