| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Daniel Farina" <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>,"Greg Stark" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
| Date: | 2012-03-13 20:17:23 |
| Message-ID: | 4F5F6503020000250004625F@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> OK, so a single 44GB tables took 2.5 minutes to analyze; that is
> not good. It would require 11 such tables to reach 500GB (0.5
> TB), and would take 27 minutes. The report I had was twice as
> long, but still in the ballpark of "too long". :-(
But it's really 600 tables of different sizes, which wound up
actually taking:
cir=# analyze;
ANALYZE
Time: 3433794.609 ms
Just under one hour.
Now, if I remember right, the cluster was down for about three
minutes to run pg_upgrade. Until there are some statistics for key
tables, though, it's not really usable.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-03-13 20:17:27 | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-03-13 20:10:02 | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |