| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
| Date: | 2012-03-13 20:17:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20120313201727.GF23967@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:10:02PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2012-03-13 at 15:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I wonder whether it'd be worth recommending that people do an initial
> > ANALYZE with a low stats target, just to get some stats in place,
> > and then go back to analyze at whatever their normal setting is.
>
> Perhaps going even further, ANALYZE could have a quick-and-dirty mode,
> where it just analyzes say 10 random pages per table and fills in as
> much data as it can from that. And then it does the real analyze. (Or
> it could even insert fake statistics to trigger autoanalyze.) That way,
> you could have a database back in business in less than a minute.
OK, good idea. Kevin, can you test this:
PGOPTIONS='-c default_statistics_target=10' vacuumdb --all --analyze-only
Is it faster? Thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-03-13 20:29:22 | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-03-13 20:17:23 | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |