| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: No hash join across partitioned tables? |
| Date: | 2010-10-26 12:23:26 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimdAB9gBJSwx2ggn0C=+OO-OQeXwuA8nQj=HsUu@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> If we analyze the parent, do we also update the children stats, or is it
>> just that we keep two stats for the parent, one with children and one
>> without, both being updated when the parent is analyzed?
>
> The latter.
>
> The trick here is that we need to fire an analyze on the parent even
> though only its children may have had any updates.
Can we execute a SQL query at the point where we need this
information? Because it doesn't seem too hard to work up a query that
totals the inserts, updates, and reltuples across all children of each
table.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-26 12:27:29 | Re: Simplifying replication |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-26 12:10:38 | Re: ask for review of MERGE |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-26 12:24:34 | Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria |
| Previous Message | Szymon Guz | 2010-10-26 12:23:21 | Re: which one is faster |