Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"Holger Schurig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* psql tab-completion, it favours now CLUSTER table ORDER BY index"


It occurs to me (sorry that I didn't think of this earlier) that if we're
going to use "ORDER BY" it really ought to take a list columns.

Surely you jest.  The point is to be ordered the same as the index, no?

There's some narrow corner cases where it makes sense to CLUSTER without an index:

* You're going to build an index with the same order after clustering. It's cheaper to sort the data first and then create index, than to build index, sort data, and rebuild index.

* You're doing a lot of large sort + merge joins. Sorts are cheaper if the data is already in order. One might ask, though, why don't you just create an index then...

* You're using CLUSTER as a VACUUM FULL replacement, and there's no handy index to sort with. (It'd be better if we had a VACUUM FULL that rewrites the table like CLUSTER, though)

Though I don't think we're implementing "CLUSTER table ORDER BY col1, col2" anytime soon, ORDER BY does imply that a list of columns is to follow. How about "CLUSTER table USING index"?

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

               http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Reply via email to