Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
От | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57902C23E73@m0143.s-mxs.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable ("Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: