| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: clustering by partial indexes |
| Date: | 2005-11-16 01:41:06 |
| Message-ID: | 200511160141.jAG1f6n25063@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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).
Wow, imagine if we could cluster by partial indexes, and then imagine we
could allow multiple clustering per table if the partial indexes did not
overlap --- that is a massive project.
--
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 | Bill Moseley | 2005-11-16 04:23:28 | Wrong rows selected with view |
| Previous Message | Justin Hawkins | 2005-11-16 01:15:45 | Trouble with recursive trigger |