| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. |
| Date: | 2006-04-28 15:53:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1486.1146239585@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
>> Huh? Why two? Either you are allowed to cluster on indexes of this
>> type, or you're not. I don't see the point of any other distinction.
> amclusterable - as you suggest: Does cluster command something or not?
This is what we need.
> amclustered - table on such index is always clustered, cluster command does
> nothing, but optimizer/planner takes clustering into
> consideration for query planning.
"Takes clustering into account" means nothing. We don't need that. Any
such consideration would be handled by the AM-specific amcostestimate
function.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2006-04-28 16:09:40 | Re: Logging pg_autovacuum |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2006-04-28 15:44:36 | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. |