| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, 李杰(慎追) <adger(dot)lj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index |
| Date: | 2021-07-21 00:34:12 |
| Message-ID: | YPdrhFyCQqJ/k3H1@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 08:27:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I have to wonder if there really *is* a use case for CLUSTER in the
> first place on regular tables, let alone on partitioned tables, which
> are likely to be large and thus take a lot of time. What justifies
> spending so much time on this implementation? My impression is that
> CLUSTER is pretty much a fringe command nowadays, because of the access
> exclusive lock required.
>
> Does anybody actually use it?
Yeah, I am not getting really excited about doing anything here
either. I thought for some time about the interactions with
indisclustered and partitioned tables, but anything I could come up
with felt clunky.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-07-21 00:48:07 | Re: Micro-optimizations to avoid some strlen calls. |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-07-21 00:31:42 | Re: Bitmap reuse |