Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al
Date: 2008-01-28 16:36:02
Message-ID: 3001.1201538162@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> It would seem reasonable to me for pg_dump to use ORDER BY to select
>> data from clustered tables.

> What will be the performance hit from doing that?

That worries me too. Also, in general pg_dump's charter is to reproduce
the state of the database as best it can, not to "improve" it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-01-28 16:39:50 Re: GSSAPI doesn't play nice with non-canonical host names
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-01-28 16:34:31 Re: system catalog constraints question