| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com>, "Neil Conway" <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered |
| Date: | 2002-08-09 02:15:45 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOIEJLCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Or maybe just do an analyze of the table automatically after the
> > > CLUSTERing.
> >
> > Hmmm... I don't really see the problem with adding a note in the docs
> > suggesting that users following a CLUSTER with an ANALYZE (...).
>
> ANALYZE is an inexpensive operation (compared to CLUSTER, anyway), so it
> can't hurt to have it done automatically.
Well we have previously had discussions on the topic of adding analyze to
the end of dumps, etc. and the result has always been in favour of keeping
the command set orthogonal and not doing an automatic analyze...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-08-09 02:21:08 | Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-08-09 02:03:02 | Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered |