On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM, ktm@xxxxxxxx <ktm@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It probably has to do with the fact that a conditional index, does > not include every possible row in the table. Although, a "cluster" of > the matching rows and then leave the rest in place, should work. How > is that for hand-waving. :) > That actually makes sense to me. Cluster the rows covered by that index, let the rest fall where they may. I'm typically only accessing the rows covered by that index, so I'd get the benefit of the cluster command but wouldn't have to spend cycles doing the cluster for rows I don't care about. -- Douglas J Hunley (doug.hunley@xxxxxxxxx) Twitter: @hunleyd Web: douglasjhunley.com G+: http://goo.gl/sajR3 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
