Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-10-01 14:47:11
Message-ID: AANLkTikHNAm+t2-Fe-RcBcnHOGT_oAwCBeXTh_RRz_A9@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
> I guess that if the planner makes a wrong choice in this case (that is,
> seq scan + sort instead of index scan) there's no way for "cluster" to
> behave in a different way. If, on the contrary, the "create table..." uses
> the right plan, and cluster doesn't, we have a problem in the patch.
> Am I right?

Good point. I think you're right.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-01 14:54:47 Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-10-01 14:44:44 Re: wip: functions median and percentile