Re: pg_upgrade and statistics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Date
Msg-id 4F5F5E450200002500046254@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade and statistics  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>>> cir=# analyze "CaseHist";
>>>> ANALYZE
>>>> Time: 143450.467 ms
> OK, so a single 44GB tables took 2.5 minutes to analyze;  that is
> not good.  It would require 11 such tables to reach 500GB (0.5
> TB), and would take 27 minutes.  The report I had was twice as
> long, but still in the ballpark of "too long".  :-(
We have a sister machine to the one used for that benchmark -- same
hardware and database.  The cost limit didn't seem to make much
difference:
cir=# set vacuum_cost_delay = 0;
SET
cir=# \timing on         
Timing is on.
cir=# analyze "CaseHist" ;
ANALYZE
Time: 146169.728 ms
So it really does seem to take that long.
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_buffers, redux
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)