Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> 
>>Assuming you're talkning about "You might wonder why we don't order all
>>the regression test queries explicitly to get rid of this issue once and
>>for all. The reason is that that would make the regression tests less
>>useful, not more, since they'd tend to exercise query plan types that
>>produce ordered results to the exclusion of those that don't.", good
>>point. I can think of 2 ways around this:
> 
> 
>>1) Select into a temptable, then select out of it with an order by
> 
> 
>>2) Run the output through sort before doing the diff
> 
> 
>>Is there any reason one of these wouldn't work?
> 
> 
> Like I said originally, we could certainly devise a solution if we
> needed to.  I was just pointing out that this is a nontrivial
> consideration, and I don't want to buy into it if the patch proves
> to offer only marginal performance improvements.
> 

I'll bet will not offer only marginal performance improvements. I see some
time my 4-CPU server with 3 CPU in holiday and other CPU working on a long
sequential scan. I hope that this patch, if it works correctly will be used
in future Postgresql version

Regards
Gaetano Mendola