| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX? |
| Date: | 2004-08-28 03:54:47 |
| Message-ID: | 200408280354.i7S3slb21543@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> | Right. My point was that non-full fill is valuable for us only when
> | doing clustering, while for Oracle it is a win even in non-cluster cases
> | because of the way they update in place.
>
> Don't you think this will permit also to avoid extra disk seek and cache
> invalidation? If you are updating the row (0,1) I think is less expensive
> put the new version in (0,2) instead of thousand line far from that point.
It would, but does that outweigh the decreased I/O by having things more
densely packed? I would think not.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-08-28 08:15:01 | Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX? |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-08-28 02:08:01 | Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX? |