Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Daniel Farina" <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>,"Greg Stark" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Date: 2012-03-13 20:17:23
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> OK, so a single 44GB tables took 2.5 minutes to analyze;  that is
> not good.  It would require 11 such tables to reach 500GB (0.5
> TB), and would take 27 minutes.  The report I had was twice as
> long, but still in the ballpark of "too long".  :-(
But it's really 600 tables of different sizes, which wound up
actually taking:
cir=# analyze;
Time: 3433794.609 ms
Just under one hour.
Now, if I remember right, the cluster was down for about three
minutes to run pg_upgrade.  Until there are some statistics for key
tables, though, it's not really usable.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-03-13 20:17:27
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-03-13 20:10:02
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group