Re: CLUSTER loses nulls (was Re: [ADMIN] Still a bug in - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: CLUSTER loses nulls (was Re: [ADMIN] Still a bug in
Date
Msg-id 20030303110929.R56677-100000@houston.familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to CLUSTER loses nulls (was Re: [ADMIN] Still a bug in the VACUUM)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: CLUSTER loses nulls (was Re: [ADMIN] Still a bug in the VACUUM)
List pgsql-hackers
> * Make CLUSTER error out if the target index is not of an 'amindexnulls'
> index AM.  This would amount to restricting CLUSTER to b-trees, which is
> annoying.

I think this solution is fine - we just need to fix GiST to index nulls
one day :)

> It occurs to me also that the same kind of pitfall exists for partial
> indexes: cluster on a partial index, you lose.  However, I don't have
> a problem with simply refusing to cluster on partial indexes.

No problem with that...

> Comments?  Any other ideas out there?

Is there any conceivable gain in doing a CLUSTER over a tsearch index?
Surely it's basically randomly accessed?

Chris



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresql performace question
Next
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: CLUSTER loses nulls (was Re: [ADMIN] Still a bug in the VACUUM)