Tom Lane wrote: > 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. But I assume they created a partial index because they didn't want 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. Yea, that is the real issue I was alluding to. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
