Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans
Date: 2011-10-11 19:18:51
Message-ID: 4E94969B.7030406@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> The trouble is that if we VACUUM and then ANALYZE, we'll often get
> back a value very close to 100%, but then the real value may diminish
> quite a bit before the next auto-analyze fires. I think if we can
> figure out what to do about that problem we'll be well on our way...

It's not so much an issue of when the last auto-analyze was as an issue
of the number of rows in write transactions against that table in the
last X minutes. This is where it really hurts us that
pg_stat_user_tables is not time-based.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-10-11 19:27:51 Re: Index only scan paving the way for "auto" clustered tables?
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-10-11 19:02:56 Re: Index only scan paving the way for "auto" clustered tables?