Re: Physical append-only tables

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> What I'm talking about is something that would be a lot simpler than
> auto-clustering. I'm not even talking about trying to detect if the row was
> about to go into the right place -- this might be expensive and certainly
> more complicated. I'm only talking about a simple case where we *never* put
> anything anywhere other than at the end of the table, period. That should
> make the check both cheap and simple.

It also makes it so much of a corner case that even a cheap check could be
a net performance degradation, especially for people whose usage pattern
doesn't match this.