Source strings

21 Strings
100%
Browse Translate
583 Words
100%
3,503 Characters
100%
This translation is being used as source strings within this component.

Strings status

Strings Words Characters
21 583 3,503
All strings Browse Translate Zen
21 583 3,503
Read-only strings Browse Translate Zen
1 83 466
Strings with any failing checks Browse Translate Zen
1 83 466
Failing check: Ellipsis Browse Translate Zen

Summary

Project website postgis.net/workshops/postgis-intro
Project maintainers9 User avatar cvvergaraUser avatar dkastlUser avatar komzpaUser avatar astrid_emdeUser avatar dmateosUser avatar jsanzUser avatar andischiUser avatar jefUser avatar yellow73
Translation process
  • Translations can be made directly.
  • Translation suggestions can be made.
  • Any authenticated user can contribute.
  • The translation uses bilingual files.
Source code repository https://github.com/postgis/postgis-workshops.git
Repository branch master
Last remote commit Update sql cheat sheet with makevalid example 5f99414
Paul Ramsey authored 10/30/2025
Last commit in Weblate Translated using Weblate (Spanish) cb600c1
Weblate authored 09/04/2025
Weblate repository https://weblate.osgeo.org/git/postgis-workshop/index/
File mask postgis-intro/sources/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/clusterindex.po
Translation file Download postgis-intro/sources/locale/pot/clusterindex.pot
Last change Jan. 8, 2023, 2:48 a.m.
Last change made by None
Language English
Language code en
Text direction Left to right
Case sensitivity Case-sensitive
Number of speakers 1,728,473,503
Number of plurals 2
Plural type One/other
Plurals Singular 1
Plural 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, …
Plural formula n != 1
02/04/2026

String statistics

Strings percent Hosted strings Words percent Hosted words Characters percent Hosted characters
Total 21 583 3,503
Translated 100% 21 100% 583 100% 3,503
Needs editing 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Read-only 100% 21 100% 583 100% 3,503
Failing checks 4% 1 14% 83 13% 466
Strings with suggestions 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Untranslated strings 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Last 12 months Previous

Activity in last 12 months

0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes
FebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJan

Quick numbers

583
Hosted words
21
Hosted strings
100%
Translated
0
Contributors
and previous 30 days

Trends of last 30 days

—
Hosted words
+100%
—
Hosted strings
+100%
—
Translated
+100%
—
Contributors
—
User avatar None

Resource updated
The “postgis-intro/sources/locale/pot/clusterindex.pot” file was changed. 01/08/2023
User avatar None

Resource updated
The “postgis-intro/sources/locale/pot/clusterindex.pot” file was changed. 12/19/2022
User avatar None

Resource updated
The “postgis-intro/sources/locale/pot/clusterindex.pot” file was changed. 04/16/2022
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
`CLUSTER <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-cluster.html>`_: Re-orders the data in a table to match the ordering in the index.
`CLUSTER <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-cluster.html>`_: Re-orders the data in a table to match the ordering in the index.
04/16/2022
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
The difference between "no index" and "index" is generally huge and highly measurable. The difference between "mediocre index" and "great index" usually takes quite careful measurement to discern, and can be very sensitive to the workload being tested.
The difference between "no index" and "index" is generally huge and highly measurable. The difference between "mediocre index" and "great index" usually takes quite careful measurement to discern, and can be very sensitive to the workload being tested.
04/16/2022
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
In theory, yes. In practice, no really. As long as the index is a "pretty good" spatial decomposition of the data, the main determinant of performance will be the order of the actual table tuples.
In theory, yes. In practice, no really. As long as the index is a "pretty good" spatial decomposition of the data, the main determinant of performance will be the order of the actual table tuples.
04/16/2022
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
Does Index Structure Matter?
Does Index Structure Matter?
04/16/2022
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
System RAM is not the fastest memory on a modern computer. There are several levels of cache between system RAM and the actual CPU, and the underlying operating system and processor will move data up and down the cache heirarchy in blocks. If the block getting moved up happens to include the piece of data the system will need next... that's a big win. Correlating the memory structure with the spatial structure is a way in increase the odds of that win happening.
System RAM is not the fastest memory on a modern computer. There are several levels of cache between system RAM and the actual CPU, and the underlying operating system and processor will move data up and down the cache heirarchy in blocks. If the block getting moved up happens to include the piece of data the system will need next... that's a big win. Correlating the memory structure with the spatial structure is a way in increase the odds of that win happening.
04/16/2022
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
Surprisingly, yes. Keeping records that are "near each other" in space "near each other" in memory increases the odds that related records will move up the servers "memory cache heirarchy" together, and thus make memory accesses faster.
Surprisingly, yes. Keeping records that are "near each other" in space "near each other" in memory increases the odds that related records will move up the servers "memory cache heirarchy" together, and thus make memory accesses faster.
04/16/2022
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
Is clustering still necessary?
Is clustering still necessary?
04/16/2022
Browse all translation changes