On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote:
> I'm surprised that efficiencies can't be realised beyond this point. Your
> results show a sweet spot at around 1000 / 10000000, with it getting slightly
> worse beyond that. I kind of expected a lot of efficiency where all the
> values are the same, but perhaps that's due to my lack of understanding
> regarding the way they're being stored.
I think that you'd need an I/O bound workload to see significant
benefits. That seems unsurprising. I believe that random I/O from
index writes is a big problem for us.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: