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
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 unless
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 blocks which
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 version.
