At 2008-07-12 00:52:42 +0100, stark@enterprisedb.com wrote:
>
> There was some discussion about this change and in fact if you
> look at CVS HEAD you'll find it already applied.
Not as far as I can see.
> Incrementing the most significant index keys would maximize the
> distance we're jumpin around in the index tree.
I see. Thanks.
> The later versions of mine had a GUC named effective_spindle_count
> which I think is nicely abstracted away from the implementation
> details.
Yes, that does sound much better. (The patch I read had a
preread_pages_bitmapscan variable instead.)
-- ams
