| From: | Kenneth Been <kennethb(at)telocity(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: many tables in db |
| Date: | 2001-07-23 22:25:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3B5CA475.2050404@telocity.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I ran some experiments, and with the queries that I was
testing with, the clustered rtree was about 30% faster than
the unclustered one.
> This isn't really relevant to your main point, but: since an rtree
> doesn't have an associated sort order, it's not clear to me that this
> operation makes any sense. Have you determined that you'll actually get
> any performance improvement as a result of the clustering? I suspect
> you may find that you're just rearranging the table into a different
> random order.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Harding | 2001-07-23 22:32:44 | Re: Microsoft SQL Server Replication |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-07-23 22:06:43 | Re: Does dropping a column from a table mess up foreign keys? |