| From: | Ed Loehr <efl(at)pobox(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Call for alpha testing: planner statistics revisions |
| Date: | 2001-06-21 19:05:12 |
| Message-ID: | 3B324568.9E6CBABE@pobox.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I have finished a first pass at the planner statistics and cost
> estimation changes that I want to do for 7.2. It's now time to see
> how well the new code does in the real world...
>
> Some highlights of the new code include:
>
> * ANALYZE is now available as a separate command; you can run it without
> also doing a VACUUM. (Of course, VACUUM ANALYZE still works.)
What is the impact of this newly isolated ANALYZE command on the need
and/or frequency for VACUUMs?
I'd like to reduce the frequency of VACUUMs given my understanding has
been that updates/inserts/deletes are a no-no during VACUUMs (that was
6.5.x era hearsay), and we lock people out during VACUUMs (VACUUM
ANALYZE, that is).
Regards,
Ed Loehr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-21 20:02:11 | Re: [GENERAL] Call for alpha testing: planner statistics revisions |
| Previous Message | will trillich | 2001-06-21 19:00:10 | Re: newbie primary key problem |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2001-06-21 19:07:14 | Re: COPY vs. INSERT |
| Previous Message | John Moore | 2001-06-21 18:32:05 | JDBC Connection State Management with SQL Exceptions (esp Postgresql) |