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

Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns
Date: 2009-12-31 04:18:55
Message-ID: 4B3C262F.4080205@postnewspapers.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> While regular ANALYZE seems to be pretty good ... is it insane to
> suggest determining the min/max bounds of problem columns by looking at
> a btree index on the column in ANALYZE, instead of relying on random
> data sampling? An ANALYZE that didn't even have to scan the indexes but
> just look at the ends might be something that could be run much more
> frequently with less I/O and memory cost than a normal ANALYZE, just to
> selectively update key stats that are an issue for such continuously
> advancing columns.

... which Tom Lane already raised in a smarter way in a message I hadn't 
read yet. Sorry for the noise.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2009-12-31 06:56:11
Subject: Re: exec_execute_message crash
Previous:From: Craig RingerDate: 2009-12-31 04:17:29
Subject: Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns

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