On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Rob Wultsch wrote:
>>> At a minimum I assume that if both of the commands were started at
>>> about the same time they would each scan the table in the same
>>> direction and whichever creation was slower would benefit from most of
>>> the table data it needed being prepopulated in shared buffers. Is this
>>> the case?
>
>> This might be optimistic;
>
> No, it's not optimistic in the least, at least not since we implemented
> synchronized seqscans (in 8.3 or thereabouts).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Where can I find details about this in the documentation?
--
Rob Wultsch
wultsch@gmail.com