| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
| Date: | 2000-01-21 02:30:41 |
| Message-ID: | 26758.948421841@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I've wondered why we cound't analyze database without vacuum.
> We couldn't run vacuum light-heartedly because it acquires an
> exclusive lock for the target table.
There is probably no real good reason, except backwards compatibility,
why the ANALYZE function (obtaining pg_statistic data) is part of
VACUUM at all --- it could just as easily be a separate command that
would only use read access on the database. Bruce is thinking about
restructuring VACUUM, so maybe now is a good time to think about
splitting out the ANALYZE code too.
> In addition,vacuum error occurs with analyze option in most
> cases AFAIK.
Still, with current sources? What's the error message? I fixed
a problem with pg_statistic tuples getting too big...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-21 02:48:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
| Previous Message | Xun Cheng | 2000-01-21 02:19:40 | Re. [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |