From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Keith C(dot) Perry" <netadmin(at)vcsn(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: clustering by partial indexes |
Date: | 2005-11-15 18:12:12 |
Message-ID: | 17053.1132078332@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> CLUSTER says "order the table according to the order of the entries in
>> this index". A partial index doesn't define an ordering for the whole
>> table, only the rows that have entries in that index. So it doesn't
>> seem to me that you are asking for something that has a well defined
>> meaning.
> I assume it would cluster the part of the table covered by the partial
> index, and the rest of the table would be in any order. It seems like
> reasonable behavior, though this is the first request I can remember.
But what is the point? You might as well cluster by a full index.
This is *not* trivial to implement, btw, so one request with no
justification should not be enough to get it on the TODO list.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-15 18:13:19 | Re: clustering by partial indexes |
Previous Message | Eric B. Ridge | 2005-11-15 18:11:03 | Re: Number of items in a cursor... |