From: phb07 <phb07@apra.asso.fr>
To: Royce Ausburn <royce@inomial.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Auto-clustering?
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:19:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4D0B8D82.6080502@apra.asso.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E03CB9AF-169C-47CA-B82D-645C8D6E94D9@inomial.com>
References: <E03CB9AF-169C-47CA-B82D-645C8D6E94D9@inomial.com>
Royce Ausburn a écrit :
> All of the queries on this table are reporting on a single collection, so ideally a collection's data would all be stored in the same part of the disk... or at least clumped together. This can be achieved using "cluster", however as far as I know there's no automated, non-cronesque means of clustering and having the table become unusable during the cluster is not ideal.
>
>
>
If the lock level used by CLUSTER is a problem for you, you could
consider pg_reorg contrib. AFAIK, it does similar work as CLUSTER but
allowing a concurrent read and write activity on the table.
Regards. Philippe.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: phb07@apra.asso.fr, royce@inomial.com
Subject: Re: Auto-clustering?
In-Reply-To: <4D0B8D82.6080502@apra.asso.fr>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox