Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Joachim Wieland attempted to post this patch, but it appears to be gone.
> I tried a repost, and notivced it got rejected because it was >100kb.
> Let me repeat previous objections that it really should be possible to
> post a patch >100kb.
> That said, here's a gzipped ver
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The vacuum-cost-limit issue may be sufficient reason to kill this idea;
>> not sure.
> We already have a much higher cost for blocks that cause i/o than
> blocks which don't. I think if we had zero cost for block
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The vacuum-cost-limit issue may be sufficient reason to kill this idea;
> not sure.
We already have a much higher cost for blocks that cause i/o than blocks which
don't. I think if we had zero cost for blocks which don't cause i/o it would
basically work u
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * For a large table, do lazy_scan_heap, scan_heap, and a sequential
> scan usually progress at approximately the same rate?
scan_heap would probably be faster than a regular seqscan, since it
isn't doing any where-clause-checking or data output. Except if
