Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6C2DA476E9F; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:39:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from beamish.nsd.ca (unknown [205.150.156.194])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 79895476E9C; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:39:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by beamish.nsd.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11018;
	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:39:10 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: beamish.nsd.ca: smap set sender to <jllachan@nsd.ca>
	using -f
Received: from reddog.nsd.ca(192.168.101.30) by beamish.nsd.ca via smap
	(V2.1/2.1+anti-relay+anti-spam)
	id xma011016; Thu, 12 Dec 02 17:39:07 -0500
Received: from nsd.ca (jllachan-linux.nsd.ca [192.168.101.148])
	by reddog.nsd.ca (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05326;
	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:37:37 -0500
Message-ID: <3DF91030.A372DF7C@nsd.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:39:44 -0500
From: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-31 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: johnnnnnn <john@phaedrusdeinus.org>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] CLUSTER command
References: <3DF90042.E5290B7F@nsd.ca>
	<20021212135913.Q11714-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
	<20021212222641.GA8278@performics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200212/674
X-Sequence-Number: 34589

OK fine,

Let's create a new command:

PARTITION <table> ON <attribute>

I did not want to start a fight. You can keep the CLUSTER command as it
is.

I still think clustering/partitioning would be a great idea.
This is what I want to talk about. Look at the original post for the
reasons.


JLL



johnnnnnn wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly