Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 19:06 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the
> > > table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the "index
> > > the table is clustered on". That's a bit cumbersome but that's the
> > > terminology we're using at the moment. Maybe we should to come up with a
> > > new term for that to avoid confusion..
> >
> > This reminds me of something i've been wondering about for quite some
> > time. Why is it that one has to write "cluster <index> on <table>",
> > and not "cluster <table> on <index>"?
> >
> > To me, the second variant would seem more logical, but then I'm
> > not a native english speaker...
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that this should be changed, I'm just wondering
> > why it is the way it is.
>
> No idea, but I agree it conveys exactly the opposite view of what
> happens when the command is issued.
We got the syntax from Berkely, and it has always seemed backwards to me
too.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
