Re: Table clustering idea

From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Table clustering idea
Date: 2006-06-27 16:50:33
Message-ID: 1151427033.3309.251.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I think one of the issues might have been: how will you handle other
> indexes on the table when you can no longer point them at an item (since
> items will need to move to maintain an IOT).

I guess you shouldn't allow any other indexes. That's a perfectly
acceptable compromise I think... it would be still very useful for big
and narrow tables which would benefit from being clustered.

The other concern is how would you do sequential scans on the table if
items are allowed to move ? I think some other DBs have a facility to
make a "fast index scan" which is essentially a sequential scan of the
index file, something like that would be needed here too.

Cheers,
Csaba.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-06-27 16:58:32 Re: [Fwd: Re: [Pljava-dev] char with trailing space, PreparedStatement.setObject
Previous Message Yoshiyuki Asaba 2006-06-27 16:43:37 Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?