Re: [PATCHES] Bitmapscan changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Right. My understanding is that the clustered index will gradually
> degrade to a normal btree, is that correct heikki?

That's right.

> We could of course resolve this by doing a reindex.

Not reindex, but cluster. How clustered the index can be depends on the 
clusteredness of the heap.

> The other item I think this would be great for is fairly static tables.
> Think about tables that are children of partitions that haven't been
> touched in 6 months. Why are we wasting space with them?

By touched, you mean updated, right? Yes, it's particularly suitable for 
static tables, since once you cluster them, they stay clustered. 
Log-tables that are only inserted to, in monotonically increasing key 
order, also stay clustered naturally.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com