On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 19:06 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> 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.

No idea, but I agree it conveys exactly the opposite view of what
happens when the command is issued.

  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to