Re: A question about Vacuum analyze
От | Emi Lu |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A question about Vacuum analyze |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 43F4ED71.5010601@encs.concordia.ca обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A question about Vacuum analyze (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: A question about Vacuum analyze
|
Список | pgsql-general |
>>In another way, whenever we "delete/truncate and then insert" data into >>a table, it is better to "vacuum anaylze"? >> >> >You shouldn't need a VACUUM if you haven't yet done any updates or >deletes since the TRUNCATE. An ANALYZE seems like a good idea, though. >(You could get away without ANALYZE if the new data has essentially the >same statistics as the old, but if you're making only minor changes, why >are you using this technique at all ...) > > After truncate table A, around 60,000 will be inserted. Then a comparision will be done between table A and table B. After that, table B will be updated according to the comparision result. Records inserted into table A is increasing everyday. So, your suggestion is that after the population of table A, the query planner should be able to find the most efficient query plan because we do truncate but not delete, and we do not need to do vacuum analyze at all, right? Thank you, Emi
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: