> Be sure to include an ORDER BY clause. For
> example, if someone else starts a query which the planner
> determines
> is best handled with a table scan, and that is still
> running when you
> issue your INSERT/SELECT, your query will join the current
> scan at
> it's point of progress, and "wrap around" when it hits the
> end. Also,
> there would be no guarantee of what order the child tables
> were read.
Isn't it going to be much slower?
I'm asking because I could get away in my case without the order by, I guess: I'm not trying to create a completely
clusteredtable. The important thing is that most of the records are stored "close" enough one to the other in the right
order.
