Re: Seq scans status update

From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Seq scans status update
Date: 2007-06-02 17:47:58
Message-ID: C286FB5E.3234D%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Hi All,

On 5/31/07 12:40 AM, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> BTW, we've been talking about the "L2 cache effect" but we don't really
> know for sure if the effect has anything to do with the L2 cache. But
> whatever it is, it's real.

The mailing list archives contain the ample evidence of:
- it's definitely an L2 cache effect
- on fast I/O hardware tests show large benefits of keeping the ring in L2

I see no reason to re-open the discussion about these, can we accept these
as fact and continue?

- Luke

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-02 18:08:45 Re: Seq scans status update
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-02 15:55:10 Re: Bug in date.c