Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas escribi?:
> > > Which raises the issue, if we could get better statistics by passing
> > > the whole table, why not do that when VACUUM ANALYZE is run?
> >
> > I think the reason is "because the next autovacuum would undo it".
>
> Is there any way to "merge" the statistics? i.e. if a full table scan
> is done to compute precise statistics, and later a regular analyze scan
> is done, then perhaps instead of clobbering the previous stats, you
> merge them with the new ones, thus not completely losing those previous
> ones.
Crazy idea, but if a partial analyze finds that 5% of the table has
changed since the last full analyze, but 10% of the statistics are
different, we know something is wrong. ;-)
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +