CLUSTER command

From: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: CLUSTER command
Date: 2002-12-12 21:31:46
Message-ID: 3DF90042.E5290B7F@nsd.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-interfaces pgsql-performance

Hi all,

I just read about the cluster command and was a little (very)
disapointed.
Clustered tables do not remain clustered after inserts.
Clustered tables are usefull when the table is very large and there are
few different keys.

Because the table file is already extended (2G limit) using different
files extension (.N)
how complicated (modifying the code) would it be to have the table files
split according to the cluster key?

This would:

Greatly improve performance when the cluster key in included in search
criteria.
Allow for a much larger table before a file has to be split (.N).
Simplify the management of symblinks (that's something else we need to
look at).
The index file for that field would no longer be required.

Of course, there should be only one cluster key per table.
The length the "key" should be short and the number of unique key should
be low as well.

SO... ?

JLL

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2002-12-12 21:36:16 Re: problems updating table
Previous Message Manfred Koizar 2002-12-12 21:23:56 Re: PostgreSQL idocs

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Luc Lachance 2002-12-12 21:40:24 Re: [PERFORM] CLUSTER command
Previous Message Lincoln Yeoh 2002-12-12 21:02:28 Re: Docs: GIST

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Luc Lachance 2002-12-12 21:40:24 Re: [PERFORM] CLUSTER command
Previous Message Lincoln Yeoh 2002-12-12 21:02:28 Re: Docs: GIST