Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Date
Msg-id 1201564314.4257.815.camel@ebony.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable  ("Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable  (Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 23:13 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tables that are seq scanned are typically very small, like a summary 
> table with just a few rows, or huge tables in a data warehousing 
> system. Between the extremes, I don't think the threshold actually has
> a very big impact.

And if you have a partitioned table with partitions inconveniently
sized? You'd need to *reduce* shared_buffers specifically to get synch
scans and BAS to kick in. Or increase partition size. Both of which
reduce the impact of the benefits we've added.

I don't think the argument that "a table is smaller than shared buffers
therefore it is already in shared buffers" holds true in all cases. I/O
does matter.

--  Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Strange locking choices in pg_shdepend.c