Re: Grouped Index Tuples / Clustered Indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Added to TODO:
       o Add more logical syntax CLUSTER table ORDER BY index;         support current syntax for backward
compatibility

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 11:22 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Gregory Stark wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > >>> I've been thinking 
> > >>> we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes 
> > > 
> > > So we would have "clustered tables" which are tables whose heap is ordered
> > > according to an index and separately "clustered indexes" which are indexes
> > > optimized for such tables?
> > 
> > Yes, that's what I was thinking.
> > 
> > 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..
> 
> First thought: we can use the term "cluster*ing* index" for CLUSTER and
> use the term "clustered" to refer to what has happened to the table and
> the index. That will probably be confused with high availability
> clustering, so perhaps not. 
> 
> Better thought: say that CLUSTER requires an "order-defining index".
> That better explains the point that it is the table being clustered,
> using the index to define the physical order of the rows in the heap. We
> then use the word "clustered" to refer to what has happened to the
> table, and with this patch, for the index also.
> 
> That way we can have new syntax for CLUSTER
> 
>     CLUSTER table ORDER BY indexname
> 
> which is then the preferred syntax, rather than the perverse
> 
>     CLUSTER index ON table
> 
> which gives the wrong impression about what is happening, since it is
> the table that is changed, not the index.
> 
> - - -
> 
> - Are you suggesting that we have an explicit new syntax
> 
> CREATE [UNIQUE] CLUSTERED INDEX [CONCURRENTLY] fooidx ON foo (....) ...
> 
> or just that we refer to this feature as Clustered Indexes?
> 
> - Do we still need the index WITH option, in either case?
> 
> - Do you think that all Primary Keys should be clustered?
> 
> - Are you thinking to rename docs, catalog etc to reflect the new
> naming/meaning?
> 
> My thinking would be: CLUSTERED, no, yes, yes
> but I'd like to know what you think?
> 
> -- 
>   Simon Riggs             
>   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match

--  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. +