Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886B82E319E for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:03:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41920-09 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:03:45 -0400 (AST) Received: from livingmail01.inetu.net (unknown [209.235.247.80]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E709B2E00CC for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:03:44 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 4408 invoked by uid 0); 11 Feb 2008 20:03:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.23?) (salmanb@quietcaresystems.com@127.0.0.1) by livingmail01.inetu.net with SMTP; 11 Feb 2008 20:03:44 -0000 Message-ID: <47B0AA1F.8040101@quietcaresystems.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:03:43 -0500 From: salman User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071009) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Question about CLUSTER Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200802/139 X-Sequence-Number: 28213 Hello, I'm planning to cluster a few large tables in our database but I'm unable to find any recommendations/documentation on best practices -- Mainly, whether it's better to use an index which has a higher idx_scan value, a higher idx_tup_read value, or the higest idx_tup_fetch value. I'm assuming that idx_tup_read would probably be the best choice, but want to get other opinions before proceeding. Can anyone point me to docs which explain this better? -salman