Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
От
Conor Walsh
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Дата
Msg-id
AANLkTikR77m7ttGb5Y1y7HWa0Os95TQXj_+wgqa9Xkfm@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... (Joshua D. Drake)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: Why we don't want hints Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Re: Why we don't want hints Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com>
Re: Why we don't want hints Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: Why we don't want hints Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Well that already happens... My understanding is that auto-analyze will fire only after my transaction is completed, because it is a seperate daemon. If I do like so: BEGIN; COPY ...; -- Dangerously un-analyzed SELECT complicated-stuff ...; END; Auto-analyze does not benefit me, or might not because it won't fire often enough. I agree that analyze is very fast, and it often seems to me like the cost/benefit ratio suggests making auto-analyze even more aggressive. Disclaimer/disclosure: I deal exclusively with very large data sets these days, so analyzing all the time is almost a highly effective worst-case amortization. I understand that constant analyze is not so great in, say, an OLTP setting. But if the check is cheap, making auto-analyze more integrated and less daemon-driven might be a net win. I'm not sure. -Conor
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления