On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:33:29PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > What is the target=10 duration? I think 10 is as low as we can
> > acceptably recommend. Should we recommend they run vacuumdb
> > twice, once with default_statistics_target = 4, and another with
> > the default?
> Here are the results at various settings.
> 1 : 172198.892 ms
> 2 : 295536.814 ms
> 4 : 474319.826 ms
> 10 : 750458.312 ms
> 100 : 3433794.609 ms
Thanks, good numbers to know.
> I'm not sure what's best for a general approach to the problem. For
> my own part, I'd be inclined to cherry-pick tables if I were in a
> I hope we at least bring over relpages and reltuples, to give the
> optimizer *some* clue what it's looking at. I wouldn't thing those
> would be changing semantics or format very often.
True, but we don't migrate them either.
This is the exact same problem you would have restoring a pg_dump
backup. The improvement needs to go into pg_dump, and then pg_upgrade
can make use of it.
Another idea is to just copy over pg_statistic like we copy of
pg_largeobject now, and force autovacuum to run.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-03-14 00:30:17|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2012-03-13 23:53:53|
|Subject: Chronic performance issue with Replication Failover and FSM.|