| From: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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 13:13:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAP-rdTZRDc4P4Zg=+U-Ct68S5V6ri=EeFv3HSVc8TSVgRQMA=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Nicolas
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2012-02-22 13:14:08 | Re: temporal algebra and data type |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-22 12:59:39 | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? |