| From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Grouped Index Tuples / Clustered Indexes |
| Date: | 2007-03-11 18:06:11 |
| Message-ID: | 45F44513.5090505@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the
> table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the "index
> the table is clustered on". That's a bit cumbersome but that's the
> terminology we're using at the moment. Maybe we should to come up with a
> new term for that to avoid confusion..
This reminds me of something i've been wondering about for quite some
time. Why is it that one has to write "cluster <index> on <table>",
and not "cluster <table> on <index>"?
To me, the second variant would seem more logical, but then I'm
not a native english speaker...
I'm not suggesting that this should be changed, I'm just wondering
why it is the way it is.
greetings, Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-03-11 19:47:51 | Re: My honours project - databases using dynamically attached entity-properties |
| Previous Message | Naz Gassiep | 2007-03-11 15:09:57 | Re: PostgreSQL - 'SKYLINE OF' clause added! |