From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions |
Date: | 2007-06-01 03:19:18 |
Message-ID: | 16011.1180667958@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Our documentation says
> | analyze threshold = analyze base threshold
> | + analyze scale factor * number of tuples
> | is compared to the total number of tuples inserted, updated, or deleted
> | since the last ANALYZE.
> but deleted tuples are not considered in the total number, because the delta
> of {n_live_tuples + n_dead_tuples} is not changed by DELETE. We add the number
> of DELETE into n_live_tuples and subtract it from n_dead_tuples.
Yeah, I was concerned about that when I was making the patch, but didn't
see any simple fix. A large number of DELETEs (without any inserts or
updates) would trigger a VACUUM but not an ANALYZE, which in the worst
case would be bad because the stats could have shifted.
We could fix this at the cost of carrying another per-table counter in
the stats info, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-01 03:22:40 | Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-01 02:21:08 | Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions |