From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? |
Date: | 2012-02-22 13:33:07 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZmf36SNXzsVUbKRXq6bo-+w9M0yuAEJ7gJkppg_g5b=g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Nicolas Barbier
<nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2012/2/22 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> I had to reply to query about usage VACUUM ANALYZE or ANALYZE. I
>>> expected so ANALYZE should be faster then VACUUM ANALYZE.
>>>
>>> But is not true. Why?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that VACUUM ANALYZE *will* be faster than ANALYZE in
>> general, because VACUUM has to scan the whole table, and ANALYZE only
>> a fixed-size subset of its pages.
>
> It sounds like you just said the opposite of what you wanted to say.
Yeah, I did. Woops. Let me try that again:
ANALYZE should be faster; reads only some pages.
VACUUM ANALYZE should be slower; reads them all.
Dunno why Pavel's seeing the opposite without more info.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-02-22 13:38:40 | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-22 13:32:04 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |