From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: No hash join across partitioned tables? |
Date: | 2010-06-09 20:11:25 |
Message-ID: | 489.1276114285@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In going back through emails I had marked as possibly needing another
> look before 9.0 is released, I came across this issue again. As I
> understand it, analyze (or analyse) now collects statistics for both
> the parent individually, and for the parent and its children together.
> However, as I further understand it, autovacuum won't actually fire
> off an analyze unless there's enough activity on the parent table
> considered individually to warrant it. So if you have an empty parent
> and a bunch of children with data in it, your stats will still stink,
> unless you analyze by hand.
Check.
> Assuming my understanding of the problem is correct, we could:
> (a) fix it,
> (b) document that you should consider periodic manual analyze commands
> in this situation, or
> (c) do nothing.
> Thoughts?
The objections to (a) are that it might result in excessive ANALYZE work
if not done intelligently, and that we haven't got a patch ready anyway.
I would have liked to get to this for 9.0 but I feel it's a bit late
now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-09 20:35:55 | Re: [BUGS] Server crash while trying to read expression using pg_get_expr() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-09 20:06:53 | Re: failover vs. read only queries |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-10 01:49:53 | Re: requested shared memory size overflows size_t |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-09 19:47:55 | Re: No hash join across partitioned tables? |