Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 11:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... If you have N processes doing a synchronized
>> scan, then each block that reaches shared memory is going to be hit N
>> times in fairly short succession --- which is going to be enough to
>> convince the bufmgr to keep it in memory for awhile. Thus a
>> synchronized seqscan is likely to end up flushing buffer cache in a way
>> that independent seqscans could not.
> Interesting. That may be an important consideration. If a bunch of
> backends read the block though, I don't see it as a major loss if it
> hangs around to see if one more backend needs it.
Sure, it should hang around for awhile, and will. The problem is that
its lifetime will be artificially inflated, so that the seqscan ends up
kicking out other blocks that are really of greater importance, rather
than recycling its own old blocks as it should.
regards, tom lane
