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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to