From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wrong index choosen? |
Date: | 2004-07-24 01:49:38 |
Message-ID: | 4101C032.9060409@zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Well I think pg_autovacuum as is in 7.4 can not help me for this particular
> table.
>
> The table have 4.8 milions rows and I have for that table almost 10252 new
> entries for day.
>
> I'm using pg_autovacuum with -a 200 -A 0.8 this means a threashold for
> that table equal to: 3849008 and if I understod well the way pg_autovacuum
> works this means have an analyze each 375 days, and I need an analyze for
> each day, at least.
>
> So I think is better for me put an analyze for that table in the cron.
>
> Am I wrong ?
No, I think you are right. You could do something like -a 1000 -A
.00185, but that will probably for an analyze too often for most of your
other tables.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Barry S | 2004-07-24 03:51:54 | Re: PG 7.4.3 optimizer choosing sequential scan. Why? |
Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-07-24 00:07:27 | Re: [HACKERS] Wrong index choosen? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2004-07-26 04:57:10 | arrays and indexes |
Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-07-24 00:07:27 | Re: [HACKERS] Wrong index choosen? |