Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Дата
Msg-id AANLkTim0AbX71fPTOQa++q9PAGn7SL2ziYpRnb_JMyNR@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com> wrote:
> 02.02.11 20:32, Robert Haas написав(ла):
>>
>> Yeah.  Any kind of bulk load into an empty table can be a problem,
>> even if it's not temporary.  When you load a bunch of data and then
>> immediately plan a query against it, autoanalyze hasn't had a chance
>> to do its thing yet, so sometimes you get a lousy plan.
>
> May be introducing something like 'AutoAnalyze' threshold will help? I mean
> that any insert/update/delete statement that changes more then x% of table
> (and no less then y records) must do analyze right after it was finished.
> Defaults like x=50 y=10000 should be quite good as for me.

That would actually be a pessimization for many real world cases.  Consider:

COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
SELECT

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andy Colson
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Get master-detail relationship metadata
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...