Greg Stark kirjutas P, 05.10.2003 kell 00:17: > I've never seen anyone use this feature, and I never seriously considered it > myself. It sort of has the feel of an antiquated feature that traded too much > flexibility and abstraction for raw performance on very slow disk hardware.
Read "A Conversation with Jim Gray" referenced from this slashdot article: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/17/1246255&mode=thread&tid=126 for info on how disk drives are slower than ever (relatively), and how one should treat them as such, especially for large data volumes. > However I wonder if the "nested tables" feature doesn't use it under the hood > though. It seems they would both be useful for the same types of tables. > > I'm not sure what this means for Postgres. I'm not sure if Postgres should use > a different name to avoid confusion and possibly to leave room in the future > for the possibility of supporting something like this. Or perhaps something > like this would be useful for Postgres now or in the near future? Or perhaps > the consensus is as I said, that this is an old idea that no longer gets any > respect and postgres should just pretend it doesn't exist? We can't pretend CLUSTER does not exist until we have some better technology to offer instead. ------------ Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html