Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Conor Walsh
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=XUprgXqV84iY1sukC_6Pos+DfVPFveaK1CSHf@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-performance
> I can't remember
> anyone ever complaining "ANALYZE took too long to run".  I only
> remember complaints of the form "I had to remember to manually run it
> and I wish it had just happened by itself".

Robert,

This sounds like an argument in favor of an implicit ANALYZE after all
COPY statements, and/or an implicit autoanalyze check after all
INSERT/UPDATE statements.

-Conor

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...