Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, AlvaroHerrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-10-01 02:20:48
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi, Leonardo-san,
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The wording should be something like "CLUSTER requires transient disk
>> space equal to about twice the size of the table plus its indexes".
> Could you merge those discussions into the final patch?
> Also, please check whether my modification broke your patch.
> Thank you.

It sounds like the costing model might need a bit more work before we commit this.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-10-01 02:23:30
Subject: Re: security hook on table creation
Previous:From: Itagaki TakahiroDate: 2010-10-01 01:51:41
Subject: Re: Adding getrusage profiling data to EXPLAIN output

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group