Scott Ribe wrote:
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".
That's why he said vacuum when done. Anyway, I'm not sure that a big
*contiguous* hole in the middle of the table would matter as much for
queries, because most rows would still be close to each other--most queries
would pull from one side or other of the hole, and even for those that
didn't, it would be one seek across the hole, not seeking all over the
place?
Wouldn't new / updated tuples just get put in the hole, fairly rapidly
un-clustering the table again?
I guess you could also have a fillfactor to pad out the newly clustered
data and just accept huge disk space use.
When you ran the lockless cluster again it could also fill the hole in
partly.
--
Craig Ringer
