Greg Stark kirjutas P, 05.10.2003 kell 00:17:
> I've never seen anyone use this feature, and I never seriously considered it
> myself. It sort of has the feel of an antiquated feature that traded too much
> flexibility and abstraction for raw performance on very slow disk hardware.
Read "A Conversation with Jim Gray" referenced from this slashdot
article:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/17/1246255&mode=thread&tid=126
for info on how disk drives are slower than ever (relatively), and how
one should treat them as such, especially for large data volumes.
> However I wonder if the "nested tables" feature doesn't use it under the hood
> though. It seems they would both be useful for the same types of tables.
>
> I'm not sure what this means for Postgres. I'm not sure if Postgres should use
> a different name to avoid confusion and possibly to leave room in the future
> for the possibility of supporting something like this. Or perhaps something
> like this would be useful for Postgres now or in the near future? Or perhaps
> the consensus is as I said, that this is an old idea that no longer gets any
> respect and postgres should just pretend it doesn't exist?
We can't pretend CLUSTER does not exist until we have some better
technology to offer instead.
------------
Hannu