Re: AW: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
Cc: "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2
Date: 1999-03-25 15:58:01
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.05.9903251154390.6652-100000@thelab.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 wrote:

>
> > Unfortunately, if you haven't done a vacuum, the system effectively
> > assumes that all your tables are tiny. I think this is a brain-dead
> > default, but haven't had much luck convincing anyone else that the
> > default should be changed.
> >
> I totally agree with Tom Lane here. Let me try to give some arguments.

Maybe I've missed something here, but I don't think anyone disagree's that
our stats aren't the best, but I also don't think anyone has step'd up and
provided an alternative...have they?

Personally, I'd like to see some method where stats can, to a certain
extent, be updated automagically, when changes are made to the table. The
generated stats wouldn't *replace* vacuum, just reduce the overall need
for them.

I'm not sure what is all contained in the stats, but the easiest one, I
think, to have done automagically is table sizes...add a tuple, update the
table of number of rows automatically. If that numbers gets "off", at
least it will be more reasonable then not doing anything...no?

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-03-25 16:29:12 Re: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-03-25 15:23:16 Re: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2