Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-01-21 16:03:55
Message-ID: 8581.1264089835@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> writes:
>> one idea could be to actually prepare a query using SPI for "select * from table order by <cols>" and then peek inside
>> to see which plan was generated.

> I like that!!!
> Here's a first attempt, it looks like it's working...
> (I still have to skip non-btree indexes and expression indexes, plus
> add a ASC/DESC to the select)

By the time you make this actually work in all cases, it's probably
going to be more of a mess than the other way; not to mention that it
doesn't work *at all* without violating SPI internals.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-21 16:08:30 Re: lock_timeout GUC patch
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-01-21 16:03:09 Re: Git out of sync vs. CVS