Re: CLUSTER loses nulls (was Re: [ADMIN] Still a bug in

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CLUSTER loses nulls (was Re: [ADMIN] Still a bug in
Date: 2003-03-03 03:11:09
Message-ID: 20030303110929.R56677-100000@houston.familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> * Make CLUSTER error out if the target index is not of an 'amindexnulls'
> index AM. This would amount to restricting CLUSTER to b-trees, which is
> annoying.

I think this solution is fine - we just need to fix GiST to index nulls
one day :)

> It occurs to me also that the same kind of pitfall exists for partial
> indexes: cluster on a partial index, you lose. However, I don't have
> a problem with simply refusing to cluster on partial indexes.

No problem with that...

> Comments? Any other ideas out there?

Is there any conceivable gain in doing a CLUSTER over a tsearch index?
Surely it's basically randomly accessed?

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2003-03-03 03:37:25 Re: CLUSTER loses nulls (was Re: [ADMIN] Still a bug in the VACUUM)
Previous Message Stef Telford 2003-03-03 03:02:32 System Tables and Triggers