X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3679FA30C for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:24:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27436-06 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:24:29 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from smtp.blackducksoftware.com (nat.blackducksoftware.com [216.195.218.91]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEC89FA2C7 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:24:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (gyro.blackducksoftware.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.blackducksoftware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C235C4571 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.blackducksoftware.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.blackducksoftware.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22602-08 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.12.14.86] (tcook.blackducksoftware.com [10.12.14.86]) by smtp.blackducksoftware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264585C43DE for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4480BAA1.9040907@blackducksoftware.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:24:33 -0400 From: "Todd A. Cook" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8 (X11/20060411) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates References: <14821.1149104747@sss.pgh.pa.us> <10464.1149281016@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87k67zdymk.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> <200606021515.44174.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <200606021515.44174.josh@agliodbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at blackducksoftware.com X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/92 X-Sequence-Number: 84325 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