> But for most users analyze doesn't really have to run as often as
> vacuum. One sequential scan per night doesn't seem like that big a deal
> to me.
Clearly you don't have any 0.5 TB databases.
> > I'd still be worried about the CPU pain though. ANALYZE can afford to
> > expend a pretty fair number of cycles per sampled tuple, but with a
> > whole-table sample that's going to add up.
Agreed. Despite conventional wisdom, most PostgreSQL databases ... even
those with high level OLTP or very large DW ... are CPU-bound. We
really don't want an ANALYZE which is an order-of-magnitude increase in
PostgreSQL @ Sun
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Todd A. Cook||Date: 2006-06-02 22:24:33|
|Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2006-06-02 21:46:41|
|Subject: Re: COPY (query) TO file|