Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

From: Conor Walsh <ctw(at)adverb(dot)ly>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Date: 2011-02-04 02:12:57
Message-ID: AANLkTi=XUprgXqV84iY1sukC_6Pos+DfVPFveaK1CSHf@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

> I can't remember
> anyone ever complaining "ANALYZE took too long to run".  I only
> remember complaints of the form "I had to remember to manually run it
> and I wish it had just happened by itself".

Robert,

This sounds like an argument in favor of an implicit ANALYZE after all
COPY statements, and/or an implicit autoanalyze check after all
INSERT/UPDATE statements.

-Conor

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-02-04 02:32:31 Re: exposing COPY API
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-04 02:05:52 Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2011-02-04 02:33:30 Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-04 02:05:52 Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...