"Gregory Maxwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 4/9/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So before we go inventing complicated bits of code with lots of added >> overhead, we should first find out exactly why the system doesn't >> already work the way it's supposed to.
> But is that really the behavior we should expect? Certainly. If the OS has readahead logic at all, it ought to think that a seqscan of a large table qualifies. Your arguments seem to question whether readahead is useful at all --- but they would apply *just as well* to an app doing its own readahead, which is what is really getting proposed in this thread. Before we go replacing a standard OS-level facility with our own version, we need to have a much clearer idea of why the OS isn't getting the job done for us. Otherwise we're likely to write a large amount of code and find out that it doesn't work very well either. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend