Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.44.0208082055020.14590-100000@cm-lcon1-46-187.cm.vtr.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane dijo: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Tom, should we be updating that flag after we CLUSTER instead of > > requiring an ANALYZE after the CLUSTER? > > Could do that I suppose, but I'm not super-excited about it. ANALYZE is > quite cheap these days (especially in comparison to CLUSTER ;-)). I'd > settle for a note in the CLUSTER docs that recommends a subsequent > ANALYZE --- this seems no different from recommending ANALYZE after bulk > data load or other major update of a table. What if I [try to] extend the grammar to support an additional ANALYZE in CLUSTER, so that it analyzes the table automatically? Say CLUSTER <index> ON <table> [ANALYZE]; Or maybe just do an analyze of the table automatically after the CLUSTERing. What does everybody think? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>) "Para tener mas hay que desear menos"
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: