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
