Re: Synchronized Scan benchmark results

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 10:23 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > - a hash join
>
> This is where I got stuck.
>
> * If it's one big ( > NBuffers/2 ) table and one small table, the small
> table will only serve to occupy some shared_buffers (right?
> * If it's two big tables, a join would be a major operation. I don't
> think it would even choose a hash join in that situation, right?

The large table will do a SeqScan though, so should hit your code. Just
look at the EXPLAIN first.

> To summarize, in the next round of testing, I will
> * disable sync_seqscan_offset completely
> * use recycle_buffers=0 and 32
> * I'll still test against 8.2.3 for consistency in case you suggest
> otherwise.

Sounds OK.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com