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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: vacuum analyze again...
Date
Msg-id 200102201926.OAA14918@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum analyze again...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> 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.
>
> That's why I'm asking what the data is.  The function calls per se can't
> be that slow; I think there must be some datatype-specific issue.
>
> With TOAST in the mix, TOAST fetches could very well be an issue, but
> I didn't think 7.1 was being discussed ...
>

I would love to hear what the issue is with ANALYZE.  There isn't much
going on with ANALYZE except the function calls.

--
  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: "Joseph"
Date:
Subject: RE: postgres load
Next
From: Dan Lyke
Date:
Subject: Re: A How-To: PostgreSQL from Tcl via ODBC