Re: Design notes for BufMgrLock rewrite

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Design notes for BufMgrLock rewrite
Date: 2005-02-17 12:05:43
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D2FB@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Would there be any value in incrementing by 2 for index accesses and 1
> for seq-scans/vacuums? Actually, it should probably be a ratio based on
> random_page_cost shouldn't it?

What happens with very small hot tables that are only a few pages and thus have
no index defined.

I think it would not be good to treat such data pages as less important than
index pages.

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pgsql 2005-02-17 12:47:50 Re: Help me recovering data
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2005-02-17 10:13:22 Re: Terminating a SETOF function call sequence