CLUSTER and clustered indices

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: CLUSTER and clustered indices
Date: 2005-11-17 15:25:26
Message-ID: 1132241126.4959.123.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

When a table has been CLUSTERed on a particular index AND that index
values is monotonically increasing, then it would be a bad move to use
blocks from the FSM since this would tend to destroy the natural
clustering sequence.

The index values will be monotonically increasing if a datatype is
defined as SERIAL or if the default value is defined as the nextval of a
sequence.

Does anybody think it would be a good idea to not use the FSM if
- we have a CLUSTER defined on an index
- for the indexed column we have default value set of nextval()

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paesold 2005-11-17 15:28:01 Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2005-11-17 15:15:30 Re: MERGE vs REPLACE