DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=E96d/boUa/feaHlBafSRpxY6p+Jm915/1Qt6zn1f1l7sNuxHPE8GaBf2F3/FphjqL4YZlkZTQ7rbm7ZegC4I8EK2avCNab75AtIafBhjdInc4cid++8a2IXguOOL6eAmc/mRE69fhbi27GIVsWSOA07j2l3kok3MfQQlTlA6L18=
Message-ID: <dcc563d10802111333o535bfc8xd28efd7d2c5e0d26@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:33:37 -0600
From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: salman <salmanb@quietcaresystems.com>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Question about CLUSTER
Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <47B0AA1F.8040101@quietcaresystems.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <47B0AA1F.8040101@quietcaresystems.com>

On Feb 11, 2008 2:03 PM, salman <salmanb@quietcaresystems.com> wrote:
> 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.

If you've got two indexes that are both being hit a lot, it might be
worth looking into their correlation, and if they get used a lot
together, look at creating an index on both.

But I'd guess that idx_tup_read would be a good bet.