Horton

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 2008-01-29T13:31:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Simon Riggs wrote:

> And if you have a partitioned table with partitions inconveniently
> sized? You'd need to *reduce* shared_buffers specifically to get synch
> scans and BAS to kick in. Or increase partition size. Both of which
> reduce the impact of the benefits we've added.
> 
> I don't think the argument that "a table is smaller than shared buffers
> therefore it is already in shared buffers" holds true in all cases. I/O
> does matter.
> 
+1. If we go with 'enable_sync_seqcans' for 8.3, and in a future release 
cycle we do test the cases Simon described above and we agree we need to 
do a fine tune to benefit from this feature, we will need to deprecate 
'enable_sync_seqscans' and invent another one (sync_seqscans_threshold). 
Looking at this perpective, IMHO we should go with the number (0.25) 
instead of the boolean.


-- 
   Euler Taveira de Oliveira
   http://www.timbira.com/