Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23298.1355370698@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:27:39PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Actually, the table had been analysed but not vacuumed, so this >> kinda begs the question what will happen to this value on >> pg_upgrade? Will people's queries suddenly get slower until >> autovacuum kicks in on the table? > [ moved to hackers list.] > Yes, this does seem like a problem for upgrades from 9.2 to 9.3? We can > have pg_dump --binary-upgrade set these, or have ANALYZE set it. I > would prefer the later. ANALYZE does not set that value, and is not going to start doing so, because it doesn't scan enough of the table to derive a trustworthy value. It's been clear for some time that pg_upgrade ought to do something about transferring the "statistics" columns in pg_class to the new cluster. This is just another example of why. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: