Re: AW: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2

From: geek+(at)cmu(dot)edu
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2
Date: 1999-03-25 21:02:40
Message-ID: emacs-smtp-2711-14074-42096-361803@export.andrew.cmu.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
=====================================================================
| JAVA must have been developed in the wilds of West Virginia. |
| After all, why else would it support only single inheritance?? |
=====================================================================
| Finger geek(at)cmu(dot)edu for my public key. |
=====================================================================

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 1999-03-25 22:51:40 Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL LOGO (was: Developers Globe (FINAL))
Previous Message Vince Vielhaber 1999-03-25 20:20:54 Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL LOGO (was: Developers Globe (FINAL))