| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: global temporary tables |
| Date: | 2010-04-24 18:41:11 |
| Message-ID: | k2v162867791004241141peb800d6cmb81561a30a8ed5d3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> For a first cut, I had thought about ignoring the problem. Now, that
> may sound stupid, because now if two different backends have very
> different distributions of data in the table and both do an ANALYZE,
> one set of statistics will clobber the other set of statistics. On
> the flip side, for some usage patterns, it might be actually work out
> to a win. Maybe the data I'm putting in here today is a great deal
> like the data I put in here yesterday, and planning it with
> yesterday's statistics doesn't cost enough to be worth a re-ANALYZE.
>
Both variant can be. First time - statistic can be taken from some
"original" (can be empty). After ANALYZE the statistic can be
individual.
Regards
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-24 18:51:34 | Re: global temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-24 18:32:20 | Re: global temporary tables |