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 > going).
Strikes me that expressing that parameter as a percentage of shared_buffers might make it less in need of manual tuning ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly