From: | Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: cluster index on a table |
Date: | 2009-07-17 14:36:34 |
Message-ID: | 323600.71093.qm@web24614.mail.ird.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Be sure to include an ORDER BY clause. For
> example, if someone else starts a query which the planner
> determines
> is best handled with a table scan, and that is still
> running when you
> issue your INSERT/SELECT, your query will join the current
> scan at
> it's point of progress, and "wrap around" when it hits the
> end. Also,
> there would be no guarantee of what order the child tables
> were read.
Isn't it going to be much slower?
I'm asking because I could get away in my case without the order by, I guess: I'm not trying to create a completely clustered table. The important thing is that most of the records are stored "close" enough one to the other in the right order.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-17 15:26:36 | Re: cluster index on a table |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-07-17 14:32:06 | Re: [PERFORM] Concurrency issue under very heay loads |