Greg, Tom,

> But for most users analyze doesn't really have to run as often as
> vacuum. One sequential scan per night doesn't seem like that big a deal
> to me.

Clearly you don't have any 0.5 TB databases.  

> > I'd still be worried about the CPU pain though.  ANALYZE can afford to
> > expend a pretty fair number of cycles per sampled tuple, but with a
> > whole-table sample that's going to add up.

Agreed.  Despite conventional wisdom, most PostgreSQL databases ... even 
those with high level OLTP or very large DW ... are CPU-bound.    We 
really don't want an ANALYZE which is an order-of-magnitude increase in 
CPU activity.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

• Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates at 2006-06-02 21:41:07 from Greg Stark

Responses

• Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates at 2006-06-02 22:24:33 from Todd A. Cook
• Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates at 2006-06-02 22:59:18 from Greg Stark

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Todd A. Cook	Date: 2006-06-02 22:24:33
	Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates
Previous:	From: Greg Stark	Date: 2006-06-02 21:46:41
	Subject: Re: COPY (query) TO file