Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-01-25 08:23:38
Message-ID: 221678.73628.qm@web29007.mail.ird.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Rule it out. Note you should be looking at pg_am.amcanorder, not
> hardwiring knowledge of particular index types.

Sorry, I replied "ok" too fast...

I can look at pg_am.amcanorder, but I would still need the ScanKey to be used

by tuplesort; and I can't find any other way of doing it than calling
_bt_mkscankey_nodata, which is btree-specific.

I guess either:

- add another function to the list of "Index Access Method Functions", something
that returns the ScanKey in case pg_am.amcanorder is true

or

- hardwiring the fact that the only way to seq scan + sort in CLUSTER is using
a btree... hence the call to _bt_mkscankey_nodata

But maybe there's another way of doing it, I don't know the code enough

Leonardo

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-01-25 08:49:37 Re: Re: pgsql: In HS, Startup process sets SIGALRM when waiting for buffer pin.
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2010-01-25 08:15:07 Re: Questions about connection clean-up and "invalid page header"