Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE?
| От | Robert Haas | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoZiRK0jACG4L7md_RF7z7095QyraYt_GUKdpVosHfTeNA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) | 
| Ответы | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > The industry accepted description for non-sequential access is "random > access" whether or not the function that describes the movement is > entirely random. To argue otherwise is merely hairsplitting. I don't think so. For example, a bitmap index scan contrives to speed things up by arranging for the table I/O to happen in ascending block number order, with skips, rather than in random order, as a plain index scan would do, and that seems to be a pretty effective technique. Except to the extent that it interferes with the kernel's ability to do readahead, it really can't be to read blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 than to read blocks 1, 2, 4, and 5. Not reading block 3 can't require more effort than reading it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: