2012/2/22 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 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.
usual pattern in our application is
create table xx1 as select ....
create table xx2 as select .... from xx1, ....
create table xx3 as select ... from xx3, ....
create table xx4 as select ... from xx1, ...
tables xx** are use as cache.
so we have to refresh statistic early.
in this situation - and I found so in this case VACUUM ANALYZE is
faster (30%) than ANALYZE. Size of xx** is usually between 500Kb and
This is not usual pattern for OLTP - Application is strictly OLAP.
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marti Raudsepp||Date: 2012-02-22 18:45:47|
|Subject: Re: pg_test_timing tool for EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead|
|Previous:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2012-02-22 18:36:35|
|Subject: Re: determining a type oid from the name|