Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions
Date: 2007-06-01 15:57:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:

> >Yeah, I was concerned about that when I was making the patch, but didn't
> >see any simple fix.  A large number of DELETEs (without any inserts or
> >updates) would trigger a VACUUM but not an ANALYZE, which in the worst
> >case would be bad because the stats could have shifted.
> >
> >We could fix this at the cost of carrying another per-table counter in
> >the stats info, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
> I believe that whenever autovacuum performs a VACUUM it actually 
> performs a VACUUM ANALYZE at leas the old contrib version did and I 
> think Alvaro copied that.

Huh, no, it doesn't --- they are considered separately.

Alvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile   ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4"
"La rebeldía es la virtud original del hombre" (Arthur Schopenhauer)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-06-01 16:34:00
Subject: Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updating anupdatable view)
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-06-01 15:16:12
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group