From: Todd A. Cook <tcook@blackducksoftware.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:24:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4480BAA1.9040907@blackducksoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200606021515.44174.josh@agliodbs.com>
References: <14821.1149104747@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<10464.1149281016@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<87k67zdymk.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
<200606021515.44174.josh@agliodbs.com>
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Greg, Tom,
>
>> But for most users analyze doesn't really have to run as often as
>> vacuum. One sequential scan per night doesn't seem like that big a deal
>> to me.
>
> Clearly you don't have any 0.5 TB databases.
Perhaps something like "ANALYZE FULL"? Then only those who need the
more precise statistics would pay the cost for a full scan.
-- todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tcook@blackducksoftware.com
Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates
In-Reply-To: <4480BAA1.9040907@blackducksoftware.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox