Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:18:26AM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote:
> > Not trivial? Seems to me more like impossible to implement for the
> > general case which would require you to resolve the situation where
> > someone requests multiple, overlapping, clustered partial indexes
> > where the ordering requirements are in conflict.
>
> Well, currently you can only cluster on a single index per table, and I
> really doubt that will change. In any case, if someone's going to work
> on clustered indexes I think it would be much more worthwhile to make
> them self-maintaining (or at least more self-maintaining).
Wow, imagine if we could cluster by partial indexes, and then imagine we
could allow multiple clustering per table if the partial indexes did not
overlap --- that is a massive project.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073