Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 15:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Absolutely. I've got a parameter in my patch "sync_scan_offset" that
starts a seq scan N pages before the position of the last seq scan
running on that table (or a current seq scan if there's still a scan
Strikes me that expressing that parameter as a percentage of
shared_buffers might make it less in need of manual tuning ...

The original patch was a percentage of effective_cache_size, because in
theory it may be helpful to have this parameter larger than shared
buffers. Synchronized Scannning can take advantage of OS buffer cache as

Someone convinced me to change it to be an independent variable.

I don't have a strong opinion, but now I have three different opinions:
(1) Independent parameter
(2) Percentage of shared_buffers
(3) Percentage of effective_cache_size

Another approach I proposed back in December is to not have a variable like that at all, but scan the buffer cache for pages belonging to the table you're scanning to initialize the scan. Scanning all the BufferDescs is a fairly CPU and lock heavy operation, but it might be ok given that we're talking about large I/O bound sequential scans. It would require no DBA tuning and would work more robustly in varying conditions. I'm not sure where you would continue after scanning the in-cache pages. At the highest in-cache block number, perhaps.

  Heikki Linnakangas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to