Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates

From: Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Todd A(dot) Cook <tcook(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates
Date: 2006-06-03 15:43:39
Message-ID: 0B801F97-877B-49FE-88DA-8C0083FA0CE5@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jun 2, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Todd A. Cook wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Greg, Tom,
>>> But for most users analyze doesn't really have to run as often as
>>> vacuum. One sequential scan per night doesn't seem like that big
>>> a deal
>>> to me.
>> Clearly you don't have any 0.5 TB databases.
>
> Perhaps something like "ANALYZE FULL"? Then only those who need the
> more precise statistics would pay the cost for a full scan.

Might also be worth adding analyze delay settings, ala
vacuum_cost_delay.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2006-06-03 15:45:52 Re: COPY (query) TO file
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-03 15:27:03 Re: Faster Updates