I ran some experiments, and with the queries that I was testing with, the clustered rtree was about 30% faster than the unclustered one. > This isn't really relevant to your main point, but: since an rtree > doesn't have an associated sort order, it's not clear to me that this > operation makes any sense. Have you determined that you'll actually get > any performance improvement as a result of the clustering? I suspect > you may find that you're just rearranging the table into a different > random order. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
