From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: effective_io_concurrency |
Date: | 2012-08-30 19:28:12 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobWsGpL3nF2zQrmDVVhdaU4rSeY4mPCkZsRk+g+bXURiw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> From my attempted reading of the thread "posix_fadvise v22", it seems
> like modification of the planner was never discussed, rather than
> being discussed and rejected. So, is there a reason not to make the
> planner take account of effective_io_concurrency?
Not that I can see.
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-30 19:32:04 | Re: How to form a self-defined TupleTableSlot |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-30 19:27:40 | Re: Fix for gistchoose |