Re: Index/Function organized table layout

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index/Function organized table layout
Date: 2003-10-04 21:54:55
Message-ID: 22256.1065304495@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> So I'm a bit confused about the term "Clustering". It seems Postgres uses it
> to mean simply ordering the tuple storage within an otherwise normal table.

> However in other databases it seems to mean something more complex.

My take is that "clustering" means not only placing related tuples near
each other, but taking steps to preserve that organization over time.
PG is really misusing the term because our current CLUSTER command does
the first but not the second.

If tuple insertions were to try to preserve the heap ordering induced
by the latest CLUSTER command, then I think we'd have something closer
to what is usually meant by the term.

> I've never used it in Oracle, but from what I read it seems Oracle
> thinks "clustering" means storing the tuples for one table in the heap
> for *another* table entirely.

I think that's an implementation detail rather than the fundamental
meaning.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2003-10-04 22:00:13 Re: max_connections/shared_buffers (was Re: Beta4 Tag'd
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-10-04 21:25:31 Re: max_connections/shared_buffers (was Re: Beta4 Tag'd and Bundled ...)