Tom Lane wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Our documentation says
>> | analyze threshold = analyze base threshold
>> |                       + analyze scale factor * number of tuples
>> | is compared to the total number of tuples inserted, updated, or deleted
>> | since the last ANALYZE. 
> 
>> but deleted tuples are not considered in the total number, because the delta
>> of {n_live_tuples + n_dead_tuples} is not changed by DELETE. We add the number
>> of DELETE into n_live_tuples and subtract it from n_dead_tuples.
> 
> Yeah, I was concerned about that when I was making the patch, but didn't
> see any simple fix.  A large number of DELETEs (without any inserts or
> updates) would trigger a VACUUM but not an ANALYZE, which in the worst
> case would be bad because the stats could have shifted.
> 
> We could fix this at the cost of carrying another per-table counter in
> the stats info, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

I believe that whenever autovacuum performs a VACUUM it actually 
performs a VACUUM ANALYZE at leas the old contrib version did and I 
think Alvaro copied that.

In response to

• Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions at 2007-06-01 03:19:18 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions at 2007-06-01 15:57:36 from Alvaro Herrera

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tasneem Memon	Date: 2007-06-01 13:24:33
	Subject: To all the pgsql developers..Have a look at the operators proposed by me in my research paper.
Previous:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2007-06-01 11:16:16
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] like/ilike improvements