| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns |
| Date: | 2009-12-31 04:18:55 |
| Message-ID: | 4B3C262F.4080205@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> While regular ANALYZE seems to be pretty good ... is it insane to
> suggest determining the min/max bounds of problem columns by looking at
> a btree index on the column in ANALYZE, instead of relying on random
> data sampling? An ANALYZE that didn't even have to scan the indexes but
> just look at the ends might be something that could be run much more
> frequently with less I/O and memory cost than a normal ANALYZE, just to
> selectively update key stats that are an issue for such continuously
> advancing columns.
... which Tom Lane already raised in a smarter way in a message I hadn't
read yet. Sorry for the noise.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2009-12-31 06:56:11 | Re: exec_execute_message crash |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-12-31 04:17:29 | Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns |