CLUSTER and clustered indices - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject CLUSTER and clustered indices
Date
Msg-id 1132241126.4959.123.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: CLUSTER and clustered indices  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: CLUSTER and clustered indices  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
When a table has been CLUSTERed on a particular index AND that index
values is monotonically increasing, then it would be a bad move to use
blocks from the FSM since this would tend to destroy the natural
clustering sequence.

The index values will be monotonically increasing if a datatype is
defined as SERIAL or if the default value is defined as the nextval of a
sequence.

Does anybody think it would be a good idea to not use the FSM if
- we have a CLUSTER defined on an index
- for the indexed column we have default value set of nextval()

Best Regards, Simon Riggs





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Next
From: "Michael Paesold"
Date:
Subject: Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1