| From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Jim Nasby *EXTERN*'" <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sequential scan result order vs performance |
| Date: | 2016-10-31 08:14:37 |
| Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B539720AF@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 10/30/16 9:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think there will be a lot of howls. People expect that creating
>> a table by inserting a bunch of rows, and then reading back those
>> rows, will not change the order. We already futzed with that guarantee
>> a bit with syncscans, but that only affects quite large tables --- and
>> even there, we were forced to provide a way to turn it off.
>
> Leaving a 30% performance improvement on the floor because some people
> don't grok how sets work seems insane to me.
+1
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gilles Darold | 2016-10-31 08:26:27 | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |
| Previous Message | amul sul | 2016-10-31 06:16:28 | Re: Query regarding selectDumpableExtension() |