On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Nicolas Barbier
> 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.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-02-22 13:38:40|
|Subject: Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE?|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-02-22 13:32:04|
|Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2|