Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
От | Vitalii Tymchyshyn |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D4A7B69.2020704@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |
Список | pgsql-performance |
02.02.11 20:32, Robert Haas написав(ла): > > Yeah. Any kind of bulk load into an empty table can be a problem, > even if it's not temporary. When you load a bunch of data and then > immediately plan a query against it, autoanalyze hasn't had a chance > to do its thing yet, so sometimes you get a lousy plan. May be introducing something like 'AutoAnalyze' threshold will help? I mean that any insert/update/delete statement that changes more then x% of table (and no less then y records) must do analyze right after it was finished. Defaults like x=50 y=10000 should be quite good as for me. Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: