Message-ID: <43F0C189.2050501@obviously.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:27:37 -0800
From: Bryce Nesbitt <bryce1@obviously.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050921
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Very slow updates when using IN syntax subselect
References: <43ECFF0B.80905@obviously.com> <7972.1139672862@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<43EE3F77.6020108@obviously.com>
	<200602112134.57572.peter_e@gmx.net> <744.1139704657@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <744.1139704657@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>   
>> Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>>     
>>> They occur in finite time.  That's good, thanks.  But jeeze, can't
>>> postgres figure this out for itself?
>>>       
>> I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if PostgreSQL did a full table scan 
>> before each query to figure out the total size of the involved tables.
>>     
>
> It's also less than polite to complain about the behavior of
> two-year-old releases, without making any effort to ascertain
> whether more-current versions are smarter.
>   
Sorry to offend.  Are current versions smarter?
The DB I was working with still had row counts of 1 after tens of thousands
of records had been added.

With new versions, must the DB still be VACUUMED, or is that a bit
more automatic?