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

Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "J(dot) Andrew Rogers" <jrogers(at)neopolitan(dot)com>,Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, mischa(dot)sandberg(at)telus(dot)net
Subject: Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?
Date: 2004-08-27 03:39:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
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.


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-08-27 04:35:07
Subject: Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-08-27 01:45:50
Subject: Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?

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