From: | Joe Miller <joe(dot)d(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria |
Date: | 2010-10-13 21:20:11 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimqzLsA24-SED+ywHL6E=jXt_dcfu=c5=YN7XWR@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thanks for fixing the docs, but if that's the case, I shouldn't be
seeing the behavior that I'm seeing.
Should I flesh out this test case a little better and file a bug?
Thanks,
Joe
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Joe Miller <joe(dot)d(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I was looking at the autovacuum documentation:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/routine-vacuuming.html#AUTOVACUUM
>
>> For analyze, a similar condition is used: the threshold, defined as:
>> analyze threshold = analyze base threshold + analyze scale factor *
>> number of tuples
>> is compared to the total number of tuples inserted or updated since
>> the last ANALYZE.
>
>> I guess that should be updated to read "insert, updated or deleted".
>
> Mph. We caught the other places where the docs explain what the analyze
> threshold is, but missed that one. Fixed, thanks for pointing it out.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2010-10-13 21:48:21 | Re: Slow count(*) again... |
Previous Message | Brandon Casci | 2010-10-13 21:18:10 | help with understanding EXPLAIN |