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

From Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Date
Msg-id E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57902C23E73@m0143.s-mxs.net
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  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable  (Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
> It's a good point that we don't want pg_dump to screw up the cluster
> order, but that's the only use case I've seen this far for disabling
> sync scans. Even that wouldn't matter much if our estimate for
> "clusteredness" didn't get screwed up by a table that looks
> like this:
> "5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4"

I do think the guc to turn it off is useful, only I don't understand the
reasoning that pg_dump needs it to maintain the basic clustered
property.

Sorry, but I don't grok this at all.
Why the heck would we care if we have 2 parts of the table perfectly
clustered,
because we started in the middle ? Surely our stats collector should
recognize
such a table as perfectly clustered. Does it not ? We are talking about
one
breakage in the readahead logic here, this should only bring the
clustered property
from 100% to some 99.99% depending on table size vs readahead window.

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Premsun Choltanwanich"
Date:
Subject: How to use VB6 for store image to postgresql?
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable