| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dylan Hansen <dhansen(at)pixpo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values |
| Date: | 2006-06-27 17:05:33 |
| Message-ID: | 44A1655D.4020902@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> The reason I didn't patch it myself is that I'm not quite clear on what
> *should* be happening here. What effect should a large delete have on
> the ANALYZE threshold, exactly? You could argue that a deletion
> potentially changes the statistics (by omission), and therefore inserts,
> updates, and deletes should equally count +1 towards the analyze
> threshold. I don't think we are implementing that though. If we want
> to do it that way, I suspect last_anl_tuples as currently defined is not
> the right comparison point.
Just as a point of reference, the old contrib pg_autovacuum counts ins +
upd + del against the analyze threshold where as the vacuum threshold
only compares against upd + del.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2006-06-27 17:10:36 | Re: pg_dump design problem (bug??) |
| Previous Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2006-06-27 16:39:10 | Re: planning to upgrade to 8.1 |