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