Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 16011.1180667958@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> Our documentation says
> | analyze threshold = analyze base threshold
> | + analyze scale factor * number of tuples
> | is compared to the total number of tuples inserted, updated, or deleted
> | since the last ANALYZE.
> but deleted tuples are not considered in the total number, because the delta
> of {n_live_tuples + n_dead_tuples} is not changed by DELETE. We add the number
> of DELETE into n_live_tuples and subtract it from n_dead_tuples.
Yeah, I was concerned about that when I was making the patch, but didn't
see any simple fix. A large number of DELETEs (without any inserts or
updates) would trigger a VACUUM but not an ANALYZE, which in the worst
case would be bad because the stats could have shifted.
We could fix this at the cost of carrying another per-table counter in
the stats info, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: