| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuumdb --all --analyze-in-stages - wrong order? |
| Date: | 2014-09-04 03:36:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1409801761.427.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 13:51 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/18/14, 3:52 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I am looking on --analyze-in-stages option. If I understand well,
> > motivation for this option is a get some minimal statistic for databases
> > in minimal time. But when I tested, I found so iterations are per
> > databases, not per stages - some first database get a maximum statistics
> > and second has zero statistics. Isn't it unpractical?
>
> Yes. Let me see if I can fix that.
At long last, here is a patch.
If somebody has an idea how to code some of that less confusingly, let
me know.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-analyze-in-stages.patch | text/x-patch | 4.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-09-04 03:51:03 | Re: psql \watch versus \timing |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-09-04 02:42:26 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |