| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum and Autoanalyze |
| Date: | 2008-09-16 14:47:07 |
| Message-ID: | 373.1221576427@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This seems like the wrong solution. There is a general problem that
> bulk data loads on an empty table tend to result in horrible query
> plans,
Please provide some specifics. It's been a very long time since the
planner was completely unaware of the size of such a table. Lack of
stats is certainly a handicap, but I'm not convinced it should result
in horrible plans. Maybe a more appropriate answer to this type of
issue is to tweak some of the default selectivity numbers.
> And maybe also do the same thing if the table has grown significantly
> (not sure what the threshold should be) since the last ANALYZE.
Autovacuum already does this type of thing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-09-16 14:53:12 | Re: proposal - GROUPING SETS |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2008-09-16 14:43:52 | Re: proposal - GROUPING SETS |