X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5001E9FB1F0 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 17:28:06 -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 10320-01 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 17:27:54 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2D69FB1D3 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 17:27:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k42KRqiO026843; Tue, 2 May 2006 16:27:52 -0400 (EDT) To: "Mark Liberman" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table? In-reply-to: <9D938282F8C6EE43B748B910386DE93E0138B43D@srvgpimail1.GPI.local> References: <9D938282F8C6EE43B748B910386DE93E0138B43D@srvgpimail1.GPI.local> Comments: In-reply-to "Mark Liberman" message dated "Tue, 02 May 2006 12:28:18 -0700" Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:27:52 -0400 Message-ID: <26842.1146601672@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/44 X-Sequence-Number: 18831 "Mark Liberman" 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