Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal
Date
Msg-id 22854.1220962934@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> In particular I'm thinking of people clustering on a covering index (which
> isn't as uncommon as it sounds, if you have a covering index you probably do
> want to cluster it -- consider many-to-many join tables). We should be able to
> do an index-only scan which might be even faster than sorting.

[ scratches head... ]  You need *all* the data from the heap.  Or by
"covering index" do you mean an index that contains the entire table
contents?  Doesn't really sound like a case we need to focus on; or
at least this version of clustering isn't what it needs, it wants an
implementation where the table and the index are the same thing.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication