| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autoanalyze and OldestXmin |
| Date: | 2011-06-09 14:58:30 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=-+Q3Q6iNLhCy75E2GS1P3i1uf8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I am wondering if we shouldn't be asking ourselves a different
>> question: why is ANALYZE running long enough on your tables for this
>> to become an issue? How long is it taking?
>
> The log file attached in the first post has the details; it's taking around 5 mins for the accounts table with 50 scale factor and 50 clients
Wow, that's slow. Still, what if the user were doing a transaction of
comparable size? It's not like ANALYZE is doing a gigantic amount of
work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-09 14:58:58 | Re: Invalid byte sequence for encoding "UTF8", caused due to non wide-char-aware downcase_truncate_identifier() function on WINDOWS |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-09 14:55:45 | Re: literature on write-ahead logging |