Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans
Date
Msg-id 4E94969B.7030406@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> The trouble is that if we VACUUM and then ANALYZE, we'll often get
> back a value very close to 100%, but then the real value may diminish
> quite a bit before the next auto-analyze fires.  I think if we can
> figure out what to do about that problem we'll be well on our way...

It's not so much an issue of when the last auto-analyze was as an issue
of the number of rows in write transactions against that table in the
last X minutes.  This is where it really hurts us that
pg_stat_user_tables is not time-based.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation