Re: vacuum analyze again... - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: vacuum analyze again...
Date
Msg-id 200102201851.NAA12656@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum analyze again...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: vacuum analyze again...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
> To get a partial VACUUM ANALYZE that was actually usefully faster than
> the current code, I think you'd have to read just a few percent of the
> blocks, which means much less than a few percent of the rows ... unless
> maybe you picked selected blocks but then used all the rows in those
> blocks ... but is that a random sample?  It's debatable.
>
> I find it hard to believe that VAC ANALYZE is all that much slower than
> plain VACUUM anyway; fixing the indexes is the slowest part of VACUUM in
> my experience.  It would be useful to know exactly what the columns are
> in a table where VAC ANALYZE is considered unusably slow.

VACUUM ANALYZE does a huge number of adt/ function calls.  It must be
those calls that make ANALYZE slower.  People report ANALYZE is
certainly slower, and that is the only difference.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Dave Edmondson
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Postgres slowdown on large table joins
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum analyze again...