Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The objections to synchronized scans for VACUUM as listed in that thread
(summary):
2. vacuum takes breaks from the scan to clean up the indexes when it
runs out of maintenance_work_mem.
2. There have been suggestions
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It will certainly not solve the problem. What it will do is mean that
the breaks are further apart and longer, which seems to me to make the
conflict with syncscan behavior worse not better.
How would it make them longer? They still have the same
Previous thread for reference:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-06/msg00096.php
The objections to synchronized scans for VACUUM as listed in that thread
(summary):
1. vacuum sometimes progresses faster than a regular heapscan, because
it doesn't need to check WHERE clauses,
Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The objections to synchronized scans for VACUUM as listed in that thread
(summary):
2. vacuum takes breaks from the scan to clean up the indexes when it
runs out of maintenance_work_mem.
2. There have been suggestions about a more compact representation
