| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered |
| Date: | 2002-08-09 02:03:02 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0208082128160.18479-100000@cm-lcon1-46-187.cm.vtr.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway dijo:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> writes:
> > What if I [try to] extend the grammar to support an additional ANALYZE
> > in CLUSTER, so that it analyzes the table automatically?
>
> I don't like this -- it seems like bloat.
Maybe you are right.
> > Or maybe just do an analyze of the table automatically after the
> > CLUSTERing.
>
> Hmmm... I don't really see the problem with adding a note in the docs
> suggesting that users following a CLUSTER with an ANALYZE (...).
ANALYZE is an inexpensive operation (compared to CLUSTER, anyway), so it
can't hurt to have it done automatically.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
"Linux transformó mi computadora, de una `máquina para hacer cosas',
en un aparato realmente entretenido, sobre el cual cada día aprendo
algo nuevo" (Jaime Salinas)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-09 02:15:45 | Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered |
| Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2002-08-09 02:02:48 | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |