Re: Turning auto-analyze off (was Re: [GENERAL] Unusually high IO for autovacuum worker) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Turning auto-analyze off (was Re: [GENERAL] Unusually high IO for autovacuum worker)
Date
Msg-id 20130201153721.GE4918@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Turning auto-analyze off (was Re: [GENERAL] Unusually high IO for autovacuum worker)  (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Turning auto-analyze off (was Re: [GENERAL] Unusually high IO for autovacuum worker)
Re: Turning auto-analyze off (was Re: [GENERAL] Unusually high IO for autovacuum worker)
List pgsql-hackers
Pavan Deolasee escribió:

> While looking at this particular case on -general, I realized that there is
> no way to *only* disable auto-analyze on a table. While one can cheat like
> what I suggested to the OP by setting threshold very high, I think it will
> be useful to be able to just off analyze. In this particular case, the OP
> is inserting and then deleting the same rows from the parent table, thus
> keeping it almost empty. Of course, he would want to run auto-vacuum on the
> table to remove the dead rows. Usually auto-analyze would have returned
> quite fast, especially because we vacuum a table first and then analyze it.
> But in this case, since the table is a parent of a number of large child
> tables, we end up analyzing the child tables too, which takes significantly
> longer time and is quite unnecessary because in this case the activity on
> the parent table must not have changed any stats for the child tables.
>
> A new reloption such as autovacuum_analyze_enabled is what we need.

I was thinking in this option just three days ago, so yeah.

I think we also want an option to turn off just vacuum.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Turning auto-analyze off (was Re: [GENERAL] Unusually high IO for autovacuum worker)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: obsolete code