From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Mark Liberman <mliberman@mixedsignals.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:27:52 -0400
Message-ID: <26842.1146601672@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9D938282F8C6EE43B748B910386DE93E0138B43D@srvgpimail1.GPI.local>
References: <9D938282F8C6EE43B748B910386DE93E0138B43D@srvgpimail1.GPI.local>
"Mark Liberman" <mliberman@mixedsignals.com> writes:
> Now, the potentital bug:
> It appears that after you truncate a table, the statistics for that =
> table still remain in pg_statistics.
That's intentional, on the theory that when the table is re-populated
the new contents will probably resemble the old.
regards, tom lane
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mliberman@mixedsignals.com
Subject: Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table?
In-Reply-To: <26842.1146601672@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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