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. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
