Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE?

From: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: VASUKI M <vasukianand0119(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE?
Date: 2026-01-30 05:34:09
Message-ID: CADkLM=dLGe9qD5XDV8ROBXmcOgVxPYgWGp27TBz3EhdPThundg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

The suggestion to reuse existing ANALYZE internals, in particular
> examine_attribute(), makes sense. Leveraging that logic to determine
> whether analyzable attributes lack statistics should align the
> implementation more closely with core ANALYZE behavior and avoid
> re-defining missing-stats rules independently.[Thanks Sami for teaching me
> this as i am an new contributor:) ]
>

You'll find some useful code for the syscache lookups in
attribute_stats_update() and extended_statistics_update() for determining
if attributes and stats objects have matching stats.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Chao Li 2026-01-30 05:30:44 Re: Document NULL