Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the
> table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the "index
> the table is clustered on". That's a bit cumbersome but that's the
> terminology we're using at the moment. Maybe we should to come up with a
> new term for that to avoid confusion..
This reminds me of something i've been wondering about for quite some
time. Why is it that one has to write "cluster <index> on <table>",
and not "cluster <table> on <index>"?
To me, the second variant would seem more logical, but then I'm
not a native english speaker...
I'm not suggesting that this should be changed, I'm just wondering
why it is the way it is.
greetings, Florian Pflug