| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: clustering by partial indexes |
| Date: | 2005-11-15 20:01:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20051115200131.GN44860@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:18:26AM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote:
> Not trivial? Seems to me more like impossible to implement for the
> general case which would require you to resolve the situation where
> someone requests multiple, overlapping, clustered partial indexes
> where the ordering requirements are in conflict.
Well, currently you can only cluster on a single index per table, and I
really doubt that will change. In any case, if someone's going to work
on clustered indexes I think it would be much more worthwhile to make
them self-maintaining (or at least more self-maintaining).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-15 20:04:01 | Re: ablilty to test record for foreign key before deleting the record? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-15 19:57:38 | Re: Is it databases in general, SQL or Postgresql? |