Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
He
Added to TODO:
o Add more logical syntax CLUSTER table ORDER BY index;
support current syntax for backward compatibility
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 11:22 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote
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
Simon Riggs wrote:
Better thought: say that CLUSTER requires an "order-defining index".
That better explains the point that it is the table being clustered,
using the index to define the physical order of the rows in the heap. We
then use the word "clustered" to refer to what has happened to the
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 bu
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 11:22 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>> I've been thinking
> >>> we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes
> >
> > So we would have "clustered tables" which are tables who
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
Gregory Stark wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I've been thinking
we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes
So we would have "clustered tables" which are tables whose heap is ordered
according to an index and separately "clustered indexes" which are
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I've been thinking
>> we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes
So we would have "clustered tables" which are tables whose heap is ordered
according to an index and separately "clustered indexes" which are indexes
optimi
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I've been thinking
> we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes
Works for me.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---(end of broadcast)--
+1
On 3/7/07 6:53 AM, "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my only question would be.
> Why isn't that in core already ?
>
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>cho
my only question would be.
Why isn't that in core already ?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
I've updated the GIT patch at http://community.enterprisedb.com/git/.
Bitrot caused by the findinsertloc-patch has been fixed, making that
part of the GIT patch a little bit smaller and cleaner. I also did some
refactoring, and minor cleanup and commenting.
Any comments on the design or patch?
13 matches
Mail list logo