Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?

OK, new wording:

o Automatically maintain clustering on a table

This might require some background daemon to maintain clustering
during periods of low usage. It might also require tables to be only
paritally filled for easier reorganization. Another idea would
be to create a merged heap/index data file so an index lookup would
automatically access the heap data too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > Updated TODO item:
> >
> > o Automatically maintain clustering on a table
> >
> > This would require some background daemon to maintain clustering
> > during periods of low usage. It might also require tables to be only
> > paritally filled for easier reorganization. It also might require
> > creating a merged heap/index data file so an index lookup would
> > automatically access the heap data too.
>
> Fwiw, I would say the first "would" is also a "might". None of the previous
> discussions here presumed a maintenance daemon. The discussions before talked
> about a mechanism to try to place new tuples as close as possible to the
> proper index position.
>
> I would also suggest making some distinction between a cluster system similar
> to what we have now but improved to maintain the clustering continuously, and
> an actual index-organized-table where the tuples are actually only stored in a
> btree structure.
>
> They're two different approaches to similar problems. But they might both be
> useful to have, and have markedly different implementation details.
>
> --
> greg
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073