On 08/15/12 14:05, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> That actually makes sense to me. Cluster the rows covered by that
>> index, let the rest fall where they may. I'm typically only accessing
>> the rows covered by that index, so I'd get the benefit of the cluster
>> command but wouldn't have to spend cycles doing the cluster for rows I
>> don't care about.
>
> Sure, that's a feature request though. And thinking about it, I'm
> willing to bet that it's far harder to implement than it sounds.
>
> In the meantime, you could ad-hoc this by splitting the table into two
> partitions and clustering one of the two partitions.
Wouldn't creating a second index on the boolean itself and then clustering
on that be much easier?
Bosco.