| From: | phb07 <phb07(at)apra(dot)asso(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Royce Ausburn <royce(at)inomial(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-clustering? |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 16:19:14 |
| Message-ID: | 4D0B8D82.6080502@apra.asso.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Royce Ausburn a écrit :
> All of the queries on this table are reporting on a single collection, so ideally a collection's data would all be stored in the same part of the disk... or at least clumped together. This can be achieved using "cluster", however as far as I know there's no automated, non-cronesque means of clustering and having the table become unusable during the cluster is not ideal.
>
>
>
If the lock level used by CLUSTER is a problem for you, you could
consider pg_reorg contrib. AFAIK, it does similar work as CLUSTER but
allowing a concurrent read and write activity on the table.
Regards. Philippe.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Polak | 2010-12-17 17:08:28 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
| Previous Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2010-12-17 14:01:50 | Re: postgres performance tunning |