X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC9E52AA2 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 20:24:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91851-04 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 23:24:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from boutiquenumerique.com (boutiquenumerique.com [82.67.9.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9794E52A97 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 20:24:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 19647 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2005 01:25:19 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (boutiquenumerique-lists@192.168.0.4) by boutiquenumerique.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 2005 01:25:19 +0200 To: cgg007@yahoo.com, "PostgreSQL SQL" Subject: Re: Clustering problem References: <20050708205503.5923.qmail@web32515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:24:51 +0200 From: PFC Organization: =?iso-8859-15?Q?La_Boutique_Num=E9rique?= Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20050708205503.5923.qmail@web32515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.0 (Linux, build 1095) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.005 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/92 X-Sequence-Number: 22070 > Is it even possible to cluster a table based on the clustering scheme > (which is > not the link_id ...) from the master table? > > Can you gurus think of a better strategy? :) (Please??) :) You can create a functional index on a function which returns the desired order by looking in the main table, cluster it, then drop the index...