From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Grouped Index Tuples / Clustered Indexes |
Date: | 2007-03-19 16:49:53 |
Message-ID: | 200703191649.l2JGnrs24251@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 19:06 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the
> > > table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the "index
> > > the table is clustered on". That's a bit cumbersome but that's the
> > > terminology we're using at the moment. Maybe we should to come up with a
> > > new term for that to avoid confusion..
> >
> > This reminds me of something i've been wondering about for quite some
> > time. Why is it that one has to write "cluster <index> on <table>",
> > and not "cluster <table> on <index>"?
> >
> > To me, the second variant would seem more logical, but then I'm
> > not a native english speaker...
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that this should be changed, I'm just wondering
> > why it is the way it is.
>
> No idea, but I agree it conveys exactly the opposite view of what
> happens when the command is issued.
We got the syntax from Berkely, and it has always seemed backwards to me
too.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-19 16:53:08 | Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-19 16:48:33 | Re: modifying the tbale function |