Bruce Momjian <pgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> CLUSTER says "order the table according to the order of the entries in
>> this index". A partial index doesn't define an ordering for the whole
>> table, only the rows that have entries in that index. So it doesn't
>> seem to me that you are asking for something that has a well defined
>> meaning.
> I assume it would cluster the part of the table covered by the partial
> index, and the rest of the table would be in any order. It seems like
> reasonable behavior, though this is the first request I can remember.
But what is the point? You might as well cluster by a full index.
This is *not* trivial to implement, btw, so one request with no
justification should not be enough to get it on the TODO list.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
