From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Daniel Farina" <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>,"Greg Stark" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
Date: | 2012-03-15 15:20:02 |
Message-ID: | 4F61C25302000025000462F4@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I think we have two choices --- either migrate the statistics, or
> adopt my approach to generating incremental statistics quickly.
> Does anyone see any other options?
Would it make any sense to modify the incremental approach to do a
first pass of any tables with target overrides, using the default
GUC setting, and then proceed through the passes you describe for
all tables *except* those? I'm thinking that any overrides were
probably set because the columns are particularly important in terms
of accurate statistics, and that running with different GUC settings
will just be a waste of time for those tables -- if they have a high
setting for any column, they will sample more blocks for every run,
right?
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-03-15 15:46:04 | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-03-15 15:15:42 | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |