On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 19:06 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the > > table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the "index > > the table is clustered on". That's a bit cumbersome but that's the > > terminology we're using at the moment. Maybe we should to come up with a > > new term for that to avoid confusion.. > > This reminds me of something i've been wondering about for quite some > time. Why is it that one has to write "cluster <index> on <table>", > and not "cluster <table> on <index>"? > > To me, the second variant would seem more logical, but then I'm > not a native english speaker... > > I'm not suggesting that this should be changed, I'm just wondering > why it is the way it is.
No idea, but I agree it conveys exactly the opposite view of what happens when the command is issued. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
