Re: posix advises ...

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