Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Itagaki Takahiro
Subject Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinQsXngAExJOgCeGtLmCvTB8oHSZDOAB5YnKFOE@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch  (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the patch is almost ready to commit, but still
> have some comments for the usability and documentations.
> I hope native English speakers would help improving docs.

I'm checking the latest patch for applying.
I found we actually use maintenance_work_mem for the sort in seqscan+sort
case, but the cost was estimated based on work_mem in the patch. I added
internal cost_sort_with_mem() into costsize.c.

> * Documentation could be a bit more simplified like as
>  "CLUSTER requires twice disk spaces of your original table".
>  The added description seems too difficult for standard users.

I re-ordered some description in the doc. Does it look better?
Comments and suggestions welcome.

--
Itagaki Takahiro

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PlaceHolderVars versus join ordering
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: levenshtein_less_equal (was: multibyte charater set in levenshtein function)