| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stuart Brooks <stuartb(at)cat(dot)co(dot)za>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |
| Date: | 2008-04-01 15:00:15 |
| Message-ID: | 2320.1207062015@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 10:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the fourth, if we actually believed this was a problem we'd
>> need to redesign VACUUM too, as it does the same thing.
> VACUUM waits until nobody else has the buffer pinned, so lock contention
> is much less of a consideration there. Plus it rearranges the block,
> which is hard to do one tuple at a time even if we wanted to.
That's the second scan. The first scan acts exactly like Pavan is
proposing for ANALYZE.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pettis, Barry | 2008-04-01 15:12:54 | Re: Using tables in other PostGreSQL database |
| Previous Message | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo | 2008-04-01 14:54:12 | optimiser STABLE vs. temp table was: HOWTO caching data across function calls: temporary tables, cursor? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mathias Hasselmann | 2008-04-01 15:07:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Avahi support for Postgresql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-01 14:52:41 | Re: Scroll cursor oddity... |