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
