From: | Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Ibrahim Harrani <ibrahim(dot)harrani(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: cluster index on a table |
Date: | 2009-07-16 02:17:27 |
Message-ID: | ac116f9a0907151917o6d87d1a8wf3ff2afb088eb47c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Is there any interest in adding that (continual/automatic cluster
order maintenance) to a future release?
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Scott Carey<scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> wrote:
> If you have a lot of insert/update/delete activity on a table fillfactor can
> help.
>
> I don’t believe that postgres will try and maintain the table in the cluster
> order however.
>
>
> On 7/15/09 8:04 AM, "Ibrahim Harrani" <ibrahim(dot)harrani(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your suggestion.
> Is there any benefit of setting fillfactor to 70 or 80 on this table?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Scott Marlowe<scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> As another poster pointed out, you cluster on ONE index and one index
>> only. However, you can cluster on a multi-column index.
>>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Raji Sridar (raji) | 2009-07-16 04:59:41 | Concurrency issue under very heay loads |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-07-16 01:17:45 | Re: Performance comparison between Postgres and Greenplum |