Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Joe Miller <joe(dot)d(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria
Date: 2010-10-26 12:24:34
Message-ID: AANLkTikn=b2i9BZQ_xjzpjYD5j+UyTZzwXs6LFdjxwKv@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Joe Miller <joe(dot)d(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for fixing the docs, but if that's the case, I shouldn't be
> seeing the behavior that I'm seeing.
>
> Should I flesh out this test case a little better and file a bug?

A reproducible test case is always a good thing to have...

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mladen Gogala 2010-10-26 12:32:54 Re: which one is faster
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-10-26 12:23:26 Re: No hash join across partitioned tables?