Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:18:26AM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote: > > Not trivial? Seems to me more like impossible to implement for the > > general case which would require you to resolve the situation where > > someone requests multiple, overlapping, clustered partial indexes > > where the ordering requirements are in conflict. > > Well, currently you can only cluster on a single index per table, and I > really doubt that will change. In any case, if someone's going to work > on clustered indexes I think it would be much more worthwhile to make > them self-maintaining (or at least more self-maintaining). Wow, imagine if we could cluster by partial indexes, and then imagine we could allow multiple clustering per table if the partial indexes did not overlap --- that is a massive project. -- 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 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
