Re: [PERFORM] CLUSTER command
Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca>
From: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca>
To: johnnnnnn <john@phaedrusdeinus.org>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-12-12T22:39:44Z
Lists: pgsql-performance, pgsql-general
OK fine, Let's create a new command: PARTITION <table> ON <attribute> I did not want to start a fight. You can keep the CLUSTER command as it is. I still think clustering/partitioning would be a great idea. This is what I want to talk about. Look at the original post for the reasons. JLL johnnnnnn wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:03:56PM -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > I'd vote against changing the existing CLUSTER since the existing > > CLUSTER while not great does handle many different key values fairly > > well as well and this solution wouldn't. > > I would agree. What's being proposed sounds much more like table > partitioning than clustering. > > That's not to say that the existing CLUSTER couldn't be improved, at > the very least to the point where it allows inserts to respect the > clustered structure. That's a post for another thread, though. > > -johnnnnnnnnnnn > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly