Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good order, and
> > cluster is only good if you are going after seveal rows of identical
> > value or similar value in the same table, and I can't think of a case
> > where this would help. Can others? It
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:43:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Is it worth us marking any system catalog indexes as clusterable by
> > > default for performance?
> >
> > Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good
Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good order, and
cluster is only good if you are going after seveal rows of identical
value or similar value in the same table, and I can't think of a case
where this would help. Can others? It is a good question.
pg_attribute would commonly
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:43:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Is it worth us marking any system catalog indexes as clusterable by
> > default for performance?
>
> Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good order, and
> cluster is only good
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Is it worth us marking any system catalog indexes as clusterable by
> default for performance?
Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good order, and
cluster is only good if you are going after seveal rows of identical
value or similar value in t
