Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: does VACUUM ANALYZE complete with this error?

From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
To: Susan Russo <russo(at)morgan(dot)harvard(dot)edu>
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, harvsys(at)morgan(dot)harvard(dot)edu, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: does VACUUM ANALYZE complete with this error?
Date: 2007-05-23 22:38:46
Message-ID: 4654C276.6020403@g2switchworks.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Susan Russo wrote:
> Hi Tom - thanks for the additional/confirming info.
>
>   
>> So you definitely have got a problem of needing more vacuuming...
>>     
>
> Yes, we're going to nightly, as I said in last message, however, 
> it worse than this.....
>
> I found that *1* vacuum analyze works well in many instances to      
> help optimize query performance (which in one example was running
> in lightening speed on 2 of our 5 identical software/hardware/configs  
> Pg 8.1.4 servers).  However, in several cases, a *2nd* vacuum
> analyze was necessary.  (btw - first vacuum was after adjusting
> max_fsm_pages, and getting no error msgs from vacuum).
>
> I *think* - please advise, I may be able to affect configs
> for a more effective vacuum analyze the first time around (??)
> Perhaps an increase to deafult_statistics_target (set to 100??).
>
> I'd read that when performing a vacuum analyze, Pg doesn't actually
> go through all values in each table and update statistics, rather,
> it samples some of the values and uses that statistical sample. 
> Thus, different runs of the vacuum analyze might generate different
> statistics (on different dbs on different servers) since the same db
> may be used differently on a different server.   Is this correct??
>
> Thanks for any advice....I'm hoping regular duplicate vacuum
> analyze isn't the solution... 
Couple -o- points

 Update your pg servers.  8.1.9 is out, and there's plenty of bugs fixed 
between 8.1.4 and 8.1.9 that you should update.  It's relatively 
painless and worth the effort.

 I get the feeling you think vacuum and analyze are still married.  
They're not, they got divorced around 7.3 or so.  Used to be to run 
analyze you needed vacuum.  Now you can either one without the other.

 Vacuum is more expensive than analyze.  Since vacuum reclaims lost 
tuples, it has to do more work than analyze which only has to do a quick 
pass over a random sampling of the table, hence you are right in what 
you heard, that from one run to the next the data analyze returns will 
usually be a bit different.  Increasing the default stats target allows 
analyze to look at more random samples and get a more accurate report on 
the values and their distributions in the table.  This comes at the cost 
of slightly greater analyze and query planning times.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Craig JamesDate: 2007-05-23 23:46:54
Subject: Auto-ANALYZE?
Previous:From: Peter SchullerDate: 2007-05-23 20:40:31
Subject: Re: max_fsm_pages, shared_buffers and checkpoint_segments

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group