Re: Stopgap solution for table-size-estimate updating problem

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Given we expect an underestimate, can we put in a correction factor
> should the estimate get really low...sounds like we could end up
> choosing nested joins more often when we should have chosen merge joins.

One possibility: vacuum already knows how many tuples it removed. We
could set reltuples equal to, say, the mean of the number-of-tuples-
after-vacuuming and the number-of-tuples-before. In a steady state
situation this would represent a fairly reasonable choice. In cases
where the table size has actually decreased permanently, it'd take a few
cycles of vacuuming before reltuples converges to the new value, but that
doesn't seem too bad.

A standalone ANALYZE should still do what it does now, though, I think;
namely set reltuples to its best estimate of the current value.

regards, tom lane