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

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions
Date
Msg-id 20070601155736.GH4503@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:

> >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.
> 
> I believe that whenever autovacuum performs a VACUUM it actually 
> performs a VACUUM ANALYZE at leas the old contrib version did and I 
> think Alvaro copied that.

Huh, no, it doesn't --- they are considered separately.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile   ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4"
"La rebeldía es la virtud original del hombre" (Arthur Schopenhauer)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash joins vs small-integer join values
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updating anupdatable view)