From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
Date: | 2012-03-15 01:21:24 |
Message-ID: | 20120315012124.GC26534@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 08:26:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Does anyone know how bad the queries will be with only one target?
>
> Bad. That cycle seems like largely a waste of time. About the only
> thing it would do for you is ensure that relpages/reltuples are up to
> date, which seems like something we could possibly arrange for during
> the data import.
Well, it is also getting us the most common value, which seems useful.
> > I did see if vacuumdb --analyze-only was somehow being throttled by the
> > vacuum settings, but saw the drive at 100% utilization analying a 36GB
> > table on a 24GB RAM server, so it seems I/O bound.
>
> I think it'd be good to explicitly set vacuum_cost_delay to 0 in the
> first pass, in the same way as you are forcing
> default_statistics_target, just in case somebody has a nondefault
> setting for that. The second pass could probably be allowed to use some
> higher delay setting.
OK, I have now set vacuum_cost_delay=0 for the first vacuumdb
(target=1).
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-15 01:24:26 | Re: Faster compression, again |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-03-15 01:17:33 | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |