Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Updated TODO item:
>
> o Automatically maintain clustering on a table
>
> This would require some background daemon to maintain clustering
> during periods of low usage. It might also require tables to be only
> paritally filled for easier reorganization. It also might require
> creating a merged heap/index data file so an index lookup would
> automatically access the heap data too.

Fwiw, I would say the first "would" is also a "might". None of the previous
discussions here presumed a maintenance daemon. The discussions before talked
about a mechanism to try to place new tuples as close as possible to the
proper index position.

I would also suggest making some distinction between a cluster system similar
to what we have now but improved to maintain the clustering continuously, and
an actual index-organized-table where the tuples are actually only stored in a
btree structure.

They're two different approaches to similar problems. But they might both be
useful to have, and have markedly different implementation details.

--
greg