Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
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..

This reminds me of something i've been wondering about for quite some
time. Why is it that one has to write "cluster <index> on <table>",
and not "cluster <table> on <index>"?

To me, the second variant would seem more logical, but then I'm
not a native english speaker...

I'm not suggesting that this should be changed, I'm just wondering
why it is the way it is.

greetings, Florian Pflug

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to