"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote: > > Why not implement *true* CLUSTER? > With cluster, all heap tuples will be in cluster index. > What is *true* CLUSTER ? 'grep CLUSTER' over the latest SQL standards gives back nothing. > > > The last step could be done in two ways. First by limiting > > > number of indices for one table we can store coresponding > > > indices' TIDs in each heap tuple. The update is then simple > > > taking one disk write. > > > > Why limit it ? One could just save an tid array in each tuple . > > And update *entire* heap after addition new index?! I guess that this should be done even for limited number of indices' TIDs in a heap tuple ? -------------- Hannu
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new ind... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new ind... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new... Devik
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster wit... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faste... Devik
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faste... Bruce Momjian
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index sc... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index sc... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index sc... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index sc... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index sc... Mikheev, Vadim