On 2016-08-31 13:59:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes: > > On 2016-08-31 14:25:43 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Yes, sure, we're still improving even if we stick to one-seq-per-bufpage, > >> but while we're at it, we could as well find a way to make it as best as > >> we can. And allowing multiple seqs per page seems a much better > >> situation, so let's try to get there. > > > It's not really that simple. Having independent sequence rows closer > > together will have its own performance cost. > > You are ignoring the performance costs associated with eating 100x more > shared buffer space than necessary.
I doubt that's measurable in any real-world scenario. You seldomly have hundreds of thousands of sequences that you all select from at a high rate. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
