From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ANALYZE after restore |
Date: | 2002-04-03 01:51:47 |
Message-ID: | 20020402205147.3960fdae.nconway@klamath.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:40:13 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> 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?
That strikes me as a good idea; a lot of the questions we get on
-general and on IRC are solved by suggesting "have you run ANALYZE?"
And that is only the sub-section of the user community that takes the
time to track down the problem and posts about it to the mailing
list -- I shudder to think how many people have never taken the time
to tune their database at all.
Given that ANALYZE is now a separate command, so there is no need to
run a VACUUM (which could be much more expensive); furthermore, since
ANALYZE now only takes a statistical sampling of the full table, it
shouldn't take very long, even on large tables. However, I'd say we
should make this behavior optional, controlled by a command-line
switch, but it should be enabled by default.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-04-03 01:52:45 | Re: ANALYZE after restore |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-03 01:49:32 | SHOW ALL as a query result |