| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE? |
| Date: | 2024-03-29 13:51:24 |
| Message-ID: | 4168428.1711720284@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think that deviation can be explained by the fact that cost_index() takes
> baserel->allvisfrac (derived from pg_class.relallvisible) into account for
> the index-only-scan case, and I see the following difference when a test
> run fails:
> relname | relpages | reltuples | relallvisible | indisvalid | autovacuum_count | autoanalyze_count
> ----------------------+----------+-----------+---------------+------------+------------------+-------------------
> - tenk1 | 345 | 10000 | 345 | | 0 | 0
> + tenk1 | 345 | 10000 | 305 | | 0 | 0
Ouch. So what's triggering that? The intention of test_setup
surely is to provide a uniform starting point.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-03-29 14:00:00 | Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-29 13:49:06 | Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE? |