| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Cc: | "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fate of CLUSTER command ? |
| Date: | 2002-08-05 03:10:31 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEHPCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Clustering on one index doesn't decrease the performance of the other
> indexes. Also, only >=7.3 will preserve all indexes during cluster.
Sure it must? Since you are rearranging all on-disk rows to match a
particular index (say user_id, username) then it will slow down other
indexes (eg one just on username).
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-05 03:13:14 | Re: HASH: Out of overflow pages. Out of luck |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-05 02:58:47 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka SRFs) |