Re: effective_io_concurrency - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: effective_io_concurrency
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobWsGpL3nF2zQrmDVVhdaU4rSeY4mPCkZsRk+g+bXURiw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to effective_io_concurrency  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: effective_io_concurrency
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> From my attempted reading of the thread "posix_fadvise v22", it seems
> like modification of the planner was never discussed, rather than
> being discussed and rejected.  So, is there a reason not to make the
> planner take account of effective_io_concurrency?

Not that I can see.

> But it might be better yet to make ordinary index scans benefit from
> effective_io_concurrency, but even if/when that gets done it would
> probably still be worthwhile to make the planner understand the
> benefit.

That sounds good too, but separate.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for gistchoose
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: How to form a self-defined TupleTableSlot