Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right. My understanding is that the clustered index will gradually degrade to a normal btree, is that correct heikki?
That's right.
We could of course resolve this by doing a reindex.
Not reindex, but cluster. How clustered the index can be depends on the clusteredness of the heap.
The other item I think this would be great for is fairly static tables. Think about tables that are children of partitions that haven't been touched in 6 months. Why are we wasting space with them?
By touched, you mean updated, right? Yes, it's particularly suitable for static tables, since once you cluster them, they stay clustered. Log-tables that are only inserted to, in monotonically increasing key order, also stay clustered naturally.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
