Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Right. My understanding is that the clustered index will gradually
> degrade to a normal btree, is that correct heikki?
That's right.
> We could of course resolve this by doing a reindex.
Not reindex, but cluster. How clustered the index can be depends on the
clusteredness of the heap.
> The other item I think this would be great for is fairly static tables.
> Think about tables that are children of partitions that haven't been
> touched in 6 months. Why are we wasting space with them?
By touched, you mean updated, right? Yes, it's particularly suitable for
static tables, since once you cluster them, they stay clustered.
Log-tables that are only inserted to, in monotonically increasing key
order, also stay clustered naturally.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
