Simon Riggs wrote: > 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.
We got the syntax from Berkely, and it has always seemed backwards to me too. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
