On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:12:52PM -0700, fschmidt wrote: > > An implementation of clustering without locking would start by comparing the > index to the table from the beginning to find the first mismatch. Rows > before the mismatch are fine, and can be left alone. From here on, go > through the index and rewrite each row in order. This will put the rows at > the end of the table in cluster order. When done, vacuum the table. This > will result in a clustered table without any locking needed. Those few > records that were updated while clustering was happening will be out of > order, but that should only be a few. Huh? If I'm understanding you correctly you'll end up with rows in order, but with a really big hole in the middle of the table. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "clusters". > So, could this work? I could really use clustering without locking. Nice idea, but I don't think it's going to work. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while > boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
