Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered

From: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered
Date: 2002-08-04 02:55:55
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0208041250060.24736-100000@linuxworld.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > It occured to me on the plane home that now that CLUSTER is fixed we may
> > be able to put pg_index.indisclustered to use. If CLUSTER was to set
> > indisclustered to true when it clusters a heap according to the given
> > index, we could speed up sequantial scans.
>
> AFAICT you're assuming that the table is *exactly* ordered by the
> clustered attribute. While this is true at the instant CLUSTER
> completes, the exact ordering will be destroyed by the first insert or
> update :-(. I can't see much value in creating a whole new scan type

Sorry, I meant to say that heap_insert() etc would need to set
indisclustered to false.

I do see some worth in this however. Naturally, in a situation where a
database is being modified very often this is of little value. However,
for applications focussed on analysing large amounts of static data this
could increase performance significantly. Once I get some time I will
attempt to explore this further in `diff -c` format :-).

Gavin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-04 02:55:59 Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-04 02:54:12 Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks