Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Date: 2012-03-13 19:44:28
Message-ID: 14582.1331667868@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> You probably are going to ask: "why not just run ANALYZE and be done
>> with it?"

> Uhm yes. If analyze takes a long time then something is broken. It's
> only reading a sample which should be pretty much a fixed number of
> pages per table. It shouldn't take much longer on your large database
> than on your smaller databases.

The data collection work does scale according to the statistics target,
which is something that's crept up quite a lot since the code was
originally written.

I wonder whether it'd be worth recommending that people do an initial
ANALYZE with a low stats target, just to get some stats in place,
and then go back to analyze at whatever their normal setting is.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-03-13 19:48:32 Re: wal_buffers, redux
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-03-13 19:41:56 Re: about EncodeDateTime() arguments