From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? |
Date: | 2012-02-22 22:02:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZiRK0jACG4L7md_RF7z7095QyraYt_GUKdpVosHfTeNA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> The industry accepted description for non-sequential access is "random
> access" whether or not the function that describes the movement is
> entirely random. To argue otherwise is merely hairsplitting.
I don't think so. For example, a bitmap index scan contrives to speed
things up by arranging for the table I/O to happen in ascending block
number order, with skips, rather than in random order, as a plain
index scan would do, and that seems to be a pretty effective
technique. Except to the extent that it interferes with the kernel's
ability to do readahead, it really can't be to read blocks 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 than to read blocks 1, 2, 4, and 5. Not reading block 3 can't
require more effort than reading it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | james | 2012-02-22 22:31:27 | swapcache-style cache? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-22 21:58:11 | Re: leakproof |