Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Matthew T. O'Connor
Subject Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values
Date
Msg-id 44A1655D.4020902@zeut.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: auto-vacuum & Negative "anl" Values  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Tom Lane wrote:
> The reason I didn't patch it myself is that I'm not quite clear on what
> *should* be happening here.  What effect should a large delete have on
> the ANALYZE threshold, exactly?  You could argue that a deletion
> potentially changes the statistics (by omission), and therefore inserts,
> updates, and deletes should equally count +1 towards the analyze
> threshold.  I don't think we are implementing that though.  If we want
> to do it that way, I suspect last_anl_tuples as currently defined is not
> the right comparison point.

Just as a point of reference, the old contrib pg_autovacuum counts ins +
upd + del against the analyze threshold where as the vacuum threshold
only compares against  upd + del.



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Devrim GUNDUZ
Date:
Subject: Re: planning to upgrade to 8.1
Next
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump design problem (bug??)