Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
От | mlw |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3CBDECAD.28F2D897@mohawksoft.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: > My second point, that index scan is more risky than sequential scan, is > outlined above. A sequential scan reads each page once, and uses the > file system read-ahead code to prefetch the disk buffers. Index scans > are random, and could easily re-read disk pages to plow through a > significant portion of the table, and because the reads are random, > the file system will not prefetch the rows so the index scan will have > to wait for each non-cache-resident row to come in from disk. It took a bike ride to think about this one. The supposed advantage of a sequential read over an random read, in an active multitasking system, is a myth. If you are executing one query and the system is doing only that query, you may be right. Execute a number of queries at the same time, the expected benefit of a sequential scan goes out the window. The OS will be fetching blocks, more or less, at random.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: