Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127D99F99C4 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:11:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81575-01 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:10:59 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:40.727462 by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from agematis.com (yamamoto.agematis.com [62.39.111.193]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B205E9FA1A0 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:11:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 22101 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2007 15:04:20 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (82.245.81.137) by yamamoto with SMTP; 13 Sep 2007 15:04:20 +0200 Message-ID: <46E9353A.9080602@agematis.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:03:54 +0200 From: Patrice Castet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Clustered tables improves perfs ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_50=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200709/241 X-Sequence-Number: 26786 hi! I wonder if clustering a table improves perfs somehow ? Any example/ideas about that ? ref : http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/sql-cluster.html thx, P.