Re: clustering by partial indexes

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> CLUSTER says "order the table according to the order of the entries in
> >> this index".  A partial index doesn't define an ordering for the whole
> >> table, only the rows that have entries in that index.  So it doesn't
> >> seem to me that you are asking for something that has a well defined
> >> meaning.
>
> > I assume it would cluster the part of the table covered by the partial
> > index, and the rest of the table would be in any order.  It seems like
> > reasonable behavior, though this is the first request I can remember.
>
> But what is the point?  You might as well cluster by a full index.

But I assume they created a partial index because they didn't want a
full index.

> This is *not* trivial to implement, btw, so one request with no
> justification should not be enough to get it on the TODO list.

Yea, that is the real issue I was alluding to.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073