| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | geek+(at)cmu(dot)edu |
| Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2 |
| Date: | 1999-03-29 18:37:12 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.05.9903291436280.6652-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25 Mar 1999 geek+(at)cmu(dot)edu wrote:
> Then <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> spoke up and said:
> > I'm not convinced that accurate stats are worth that cost, but I don't
> > know how big the cost would be anyway. Anyone have a feel for it?
>
> They are definitely *not* worth the cost. Especially since no table
> will have the default 0 rows entry after a single vacuum analyze of
> that table. Let's be honest: if you aren't interested in doing a
> vacuum, then really aren't interested in performance, anyway.
What I personally am not interested in is having to spend 20 minute per
day with a totally locked up database because I want my queries to be
faster, when there are other ways of doing it...
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-03-29 18:40:00 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2 |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-03-29 18:09:28 | Re: [HACKERS] NULL handling question |