From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Miller <joe(dot)d(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria |
Date: | 2010-09-21 02:12:31 |
Message-ID: | 21216.1285035151@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Joe Miller <joe(dot)d(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The autovacuum daemon currently uses the number of inserted and
> updated tuples to determine if it should run VACUUM ANALYZE on a
> table. Why doesnt it consider deleted tuples as well?
I think you misread the code.
Now there *is* a problem, pre-9.0, if your update pattern is such that
most or all updates are HOT updates. To quote from the 9.0 alpha
release notes:
Revise pgstat's tracking of tuple changes to
improve the reliability of decisions about when to
auto-analyze. The previous code depended on n_live_tuples +
n_dead_tuples - last_anl_tuples, where all three of these
numbers could be bad estimates from ANALYZE itself. Even
worse, in the presence of a steady flow of HOT updates and
matching HOT-tuple reclamations, auto-analyze might never
trigger at all, even if all three numbers are exactly right,
because n_dead_tuples could hold steady.
It's not clear to me if that matches your problem, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-09-21 04:20:39 | Memory speed testing |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-20 22:28:53 | Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria |