|From:||Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>|
|To:||Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>|
|Cc:||Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: ANALYZE after restore|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 06:52, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Would it be an idea to have pg_dump append an ANALYZE; command to the end of
> > its dumps to assist newbies / inexperienced admins?
> I do not think this is desired behaviour. Firstly, pg_dump is not just for
> restoring data to the system. Presumably another flag would need to be
> added to pg_dump to prevent an ANALYZE being appended.
> This is messing and, in my opinion, it goes against the 'does what it says> it does' nature of Postgres.
What does pg_dump say it does ?
Or should pg_dump append ANALYZE only if it determines that ANALYZE has
been run on the database being dumped ?
Do you have any tools that will break when ANALYZE is added, (and which
don't break on the weird way of dumping foreign keys ;) ?
> Secondly, in experienced admins are not going to get
> experienced with database management unless they see that their database
> runs like a dog and they have to read the manual.
Rather they think that the database is indeed designed to run like a
For _forcing_ them newbies to learn we could append a new UNANALYZE
command that inserts delibarately bogus info into pg_statistic to make
it perform even worse by default ;)
In general, I'd prefer a database that has no need to be explicitly
maintained. How many experienced file-system managers do you know ?
|Next Message||Justin Clift||2002-04-03 08:16:11||Re: ANALYZE after restore|
|Previous Message||Justin Clift||2002-04-03 07:59:14||Re: Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved)|