Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions
Date
Msg-id 16011.1180667958@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions  (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions