From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. |
Date: | 2006-04-28 14:28:04 |
Message-ID: | 20060428142804.GC15566@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:14:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here I think it would be best to add an indclusterable column to pg_am.
> Actually, does clustering on *any* current index type except btree make
> sense? None of them have semantically interesting index ordering
> AFAIR, so maybe we should just reject CLUSTER on all of 'em not only GIN.
It seems to me that amorderstrategy already handles this? It's
documented as:
zero if the index offers no sort order, otherwise the strategy number
of the strategy operator that describes the sort order
ergo, if this is non-zero, CLUSTER uses that to sort, otherwise CLUSTER
is forbidden.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2006-04-28 14:44:51 | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-28 14:14:09 | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. |