Hi,
I am not sure if it is bug or not but I found some strange behaviour. Maybe it is the same as described on http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14616.1244317490@sss.pgh.pa.us ?). If yes – I’m sorry for the trouble, but I think that my example is more obvious.
Tested on PostgreSQL 9.2.4 and 9.2.6.
Console 1:
BEGIN;
DECLARE a CURSOR FOR SELECT * FROM tab;
--- Keep cursor open for disallow full vacuum of tab
Console 2:
SELECT count(*) FROM tab;
---- Result: 3588;
select reltuples from pg_class where relname='table’;
--- Result: 3588
UPDATE tab SET id=id;
UPDATE tab SET id=id;
UPDATE tab SET id=id;
VACUUM ANALYZE tab;
select reltuples from pg_class where relname='table’;
--- Result: 3588
Now wait few seconds J
select reltuples from pg_class where relname='table’;
--- Result: 12560
VACUUM ANALYZE tab;
select reltuples from pg_class where relname='table’;
--- Result: 3588
There is 3588 live records and 12560 live+dead records in table.
That is strange for me. VACUUM updates pg_class.reltuples differently (only live roiws count) than autovacuum (live and dead rows). Why?
Also in planning:
explain SELECT id FROM tab;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tab (cost=0.00..1074.60 rows=12560 width=4)
Estimation is done with the use of current pg_class.reltuples value. This value includes dead rows count after autovacuum so estimation is bad, especially in more complex planner tree, for example:
Explain SELECT a.id FROM tab AS a JOIN tab AS b USING (id);
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..6410.70 rows=12560 width=4)
-> Seq Scan on tab a (cost=0.00..1074.60 rows=12560 width=8)
-> Index Only Scan using tab_pkey on tab b (cost=0.00..0.41 rows=1 width=4)
Index Cond: (id = a.id)
PostgreSQL estimates 12560 records in query result. This is wrong estimation if dead tuples are removed during seq scan or index scan (I suppose that it is).
I don’t think that AUTOVACUUM and VACUUM ANALYZE should behave differently L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artur Zajac
