On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Greg Stark escribió: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes: >> >> The run-time of CLUSTER doesn't vary very much based on whether the >> >> data is already in index order or not. The number of passes only grows >> >> like log(n) of the size of your data and if you set >> >> maintenance_work_mem large enough (somewhere around 100MB-1GB) the >> >> constants are small enough that you're unlikely to even outgrow a >> >> single pass (plus a final merge though) >> > >> > Uh ... what? It's not based on the sort code, unless someone rewrote it >> > since I looked last. It's an index scan and will definitely depend on >> > the index ordering. >> >> Er, uh, of course. I wonder what I was thinking. > > Your patched version of course.
I would quite happily trade being right for a much faster cluster command. Also Pizza. I would gladly trade pizza for a faster cluster command. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
