| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: benchmarking the query planner |
| Date: | 2008-12-12 17:00:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20081212170023.GE3806@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas escribió:
> > Which raises the issue, if we could get better statistics by passing
> > the whole table, why not do that when VACUUM ANALYZE is run?
>
> I think the reason is "because the next autovacuum would undo it".
Is there any way to "merge" the statistics? i.e. if a full table scan
is done to compute precise statistics, and later a regular analyze scan
is done, then perhaps instead of clobbering the previous stats, you
merge them with the new ones, thus not completely losing those previous
ones.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-12 17:03:27 | Re: benchmarking the query planner |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-12-12 16:58:14 | Re: benchmarking the query planner |