On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 01:28:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Yeah, we went over this on the spanish list, turned out that I > >> couldn't remember about syncscan :-) > > > I like the new behavior. It really encourages proper use of order > > by, because the natural ordering results are effectively > > randomized. A class of subtle bugs has been made obvious. :) > > Not really, because the syncscan behavior only kicks in when your > table gets large ... you'll never see it during devel testing on toy > tables ... Good point. It's important not to test only on toy-sized tables for lots and lots of good reasons, scale-dependence of sync scans being a small one. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@xxxxxxxxx Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
