Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables
Date: 2008-12-08 15:32:00
Message-ID: 25178.1228750320@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> ... In particular we should at least try to bypass the pg_proc scan when
> there are *no* function stats records.

That idea, at least, looks to be trivial to implement; so I'll go do so.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Decibel! 2008-12-08 15:34:34 Re: Hint bits vs. OS readahead
Previous Message Decibel! 2008-12-08 15:28:37 Re: WIP: default values for function parameters