Re: effective_io_concurrency
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: effective_io_concurrency |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEYLb_UQddZKh+x3d=ugCCHBykGndfjQaOhx2ox21hsvB3HBmQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: effective_io_concurrency (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: effective_io_concurrency
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 30 August 2012 20:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. Indeed. The original effective_io_concurrency commit message said: """ ***SNIP*** (The best way to handle this for plain index scans is still under debate, so that part is not applied yet --- tgl) """ ...seems like a pity that this debate never reached a useful conclusion. Just how helpful is effective_io_concurrency? Did someone produce a benchmark at some point? -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: