| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions |
| Date: | 2007-06-01 15:57:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20070601155736.GH4503@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Yeah, I was concerned about that when I was making the patch, but didn't
> >see any simple fix. A large number of DELETEs (without any inserts or
> >updates) would trigger a VACUUM but not an ANALYZE, which in the worst
> >case would be bad because the stats could have shifted.
> >
> >We could fix this at the cost of carrying another per-table counter in
> >the stats info, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
>
> I believe that whenever autovacuum performs a VACUUM it actually
> performs a VACUUM ANALYZE at leas the old contrib version did and I
> think Alvaro copied that.
Huh, no, it doesn't --- they are considered separately.
--
Alvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4"
"La rebeldía es la virtud original del hombre" (Arthur Schopenhauer)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-01 16:34:00 | Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updating anupdatable view) |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-01 15:16:12 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |