Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria

From: Joe Miller <joe(dot)d(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria
Date: 2010-10-13 21:20:11
Message-ID: AANLkTimqzLsA24-SED+ywHL6E=jXt_dcfu=c5=YN7XWR@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Thanks for fixing the docs, but if that's the case, I shouldn't be
seeing the behavior that I'm seeing.

Should I flesh out this test case a little better and file a bug?

Thanks,

Joe

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Joe Miller <joe(dot)d(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I was looking at the autovacuum documentation:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/routine-vacuuming.html#AUTOVACUUM
>
>>    For analyze, a similar condition is used: the threshold, defined as:
>>    analyze threshold = analyze base threshold + analyze scale factor *
>> number of tuples
>>    is compared to the total number of tuples inserted or updated since
>> the last ANALYZE.
>
>> I guess that should be updated to read "insert, updated or deleted".
>
> Mph.  We caught the other places where the docs explain what the analyze
> threshold is, but missed that one.  Fixed, thanks for pointing it out.
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2010-10-13 21:48:21 Re: Slow count(*) again...
Previous Message Brandon Casci 2010-10-13 21:18:10 help with understanding EXPLAIN