| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 李杰(慎追) <adger(dot)lj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index |
| Date: | 2021-07-21 11:01:11 |
| Message-ID: | 3ba3d814decb5ed8181a1d490ac822ba388187b2.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 20:27 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I have to wonder if there really *is* a use case for CLUSTER in the
> first place on regular tables, let alone on partitioned tables, which
> are likely to be large and thus take a lot of time. What justifies
> spending so much time on this implementation? My impression is that
> CLUSTER is pretty much a fringe command nowadays, because of the access
> exclusive lock required.
>
> Does anybody actually use it?
I see is used in the field occasionally, as it can really drastically
improve performance. But I admit is is not frequently used.
In a data warehouse, which is updated only occasionally, running
CLUSTER after an update can make a lot of sense.
I personally think that it is enough to be able to cluster the table
partiton by partition.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-07-21 11:17:32 | Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays) |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2021-07-21 11:00:14 | Re: logical replication empty transactions |