From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Stopgap solution for table-size-estimate updatingproblem |
Date: | 2004-11-29 16:30:18 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D250@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> This is not true in my case, since I only "update statistics"/analyze
>> when the tables have representative content (i.e. not empty).
>
> I'm unsure why you feel you need a knob to defeat this. The only time
> when the plan would change from what you think of as the hand-tuned
> case is when the physical table size is greatly different from what it
> was when you analyzed.
Ok, understood. I just need to make sure I don't "vacuum full" in that case,
which is good anyway if I expect the table to soon grow to this size again.
I think that is good.
I think I recall that lseek may have a negative effect on some OS's readahead
calculations (probably only systems that cannot handle an lseek to the next page
eighter) ? Do you think we should cache the last value to avoid the syscall ?
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-29 16:34:38 | Re: Stopgap solution for table-size-estimate updatingproblem |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-11-29 16:07:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ... |