Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1486.1146239585@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. (Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>) |
| Ответы |
Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
>> Huh? Why two? Either you are allowed to cluster on indexes of this
>> type, or you're not. I don't see the point of any other distinction.
> amclusterable - as you suggest: Does cluster command something or not?
This is what we need.
> amclustered - table on such index is always clustered, cluster command does
> nothing, but optimizer/planner takes clustering into
> consideration for query planning.
"Takes clustering into account" means nothing. We don't need that. Any
such consideration would be handled by the AM-specific amcostestimate
function.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: