Re: ANALYZE after restore

From: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ANALYZE after restore
Date: 2002-04-03 19:19:57
Message-ID: 3CAB55DD.4DF16B9F@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > ... And PostgreSQL needs some frequent VACUUM
> > anyway, so after a while this problem solves itself for the
> > average user.
>
> Yes, that's the key point for me too. Anyone who doesn't set up for
> routine vacuums/analyzes is going to have performance problems anyway.
> Attacking that by making pg_dump force a vacuum is attacking the wrong
> place.

Hi Tom,

Good point. Although I also think we're talking about two different
things here.

No-one is proposing running a VACCUM after the load, but instead getting
some accurate statistics about the data which was loaded.

I agree adding an automatic background vacuum thread/process/something
will be really, really useful too.
Should we instead have this proposed automatic background something also
update the statistics every now and again?

If so, I think this will all be a moot point.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


> There's been discussion of adding automatic background vacuums to
> Postgres; that seems like a more useful response to the issue.
>
> regards, tom lane

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-03 19:24:36 Re: Locale support is now on by default
Previous Message Mikhail Terekhov 2002-04-03 19:17:43 Re: notification: pg_notify ?