Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FDC476E3E for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:24:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from phaedrusdeinus.org (dsl092-130-239.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.130.239]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 20C01476EF4 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:22:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8464 invoked by uid 1001); 12 Dec 2002 22:26:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:26:41 -0600 From: johnnnnnn To: Stephan Szabo Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CLUSTER command Message-ID: <20021212222641.GA8278@performics.com> References: <3DF90042.E5290B7F@nsd.ca> <20021212135913.Q11714-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021212135913.Q11714-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200212/134 X-Sequence-Number: 550 On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:03:56PM -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote: > I'd vote against changing the existing CLUSTER since the existing > CLUSTER while not great does handle many different key values fairly > well as well and this solution wouldn't. I would agree. What's being proposed sounds much more like table partitioning than clustering. That's not to say that the existing CLUSTER couldn't be improved, at the very least to the point where it allows inserts to respect the clustered structure. That's a post for another thread, though. -johnnnnnnnnnnn