Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-01-21 08:34:20
Message-ID: 20100121173419.D19E.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:

> Anyone? I'd like some feedback before moving on to do the seq scan + sort in those
> CLUSTER cases where "use_index_scan" returns false...

+1 for CLUSTER using sort.

I have a couple of comments for the current implementation:
* Do we need to disable sort-path for tables clustered on a gist index?
* I'd prefer to separate cost calculation routines from create_index_path()
and cost_sort(), rather than using a dummy planner.

Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-01-21 08:35:55 Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown
Previous Message KaiGai Kohei 2010-01-21 08:31:14 Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)