Re: clustering without locking

> 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?

-- 
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(303) 722-0567 voice



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general