Re: vacuum analyze again...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jean-Christophe Boggio <cat(at)thefreecat(dot)org>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: vacuum analyze again...
Date: 2001-02-20 19:17:51
Message-ID: 936.982696671@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I find it hard to believe that VAC ANALYZE is all that much slower than
>> plain VACUUM anyway; fixing the indexes is the slowest part of VACUUM in
>> my experience. It would be useful to know exactly what the columns are
>> in a table where VAC ANALYZE is considered unusably slow.

> VACUUM ANALYZE does a huge number of adt/ function calls. It must be
> those calls that make ANALYZE slower. People report ANALYZE is
> certainly slower, and that is the only difference.

That's why I'm asking what the data is. The function calls per se can't
be that slow; I think there must be some datatype-specific issue.

With TOAST in the mix, TOAST fetches could very well be an issue, but
I didn't think 7.1 was being discussed ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joseph 2001-02-20 19:19:34 RE: postgres load
Previous Message Rini Dutta 2001-02-20 19:11:34 RE: [SQL] handling of database size exceeding physical disk space