Re: [PERFORM] CLUSTER command
От | Jean-Luc Lachance |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] CLUSTER command |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3DF91030.A372DF7C@nsd.ca обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | CLUSTER command (Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca>) |
Ответы |
PerformPortalClose warning in 7.3
|
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: