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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Date
Msg-id AANLkTim0AbX71fPTOQa++q9PAGn7SL2ziYpRnb_JMyNR@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com> wrote:
> 02.02.11 20:32, Robert Haas написав(ла):
>>
>> Yeah.  Any kind of bulk load into an empty table can be a problem,
>> even if it's not temporary.  When you load a bunch of data and then
>> immediately plan a query against it, autoanalyze hasn't had a chance
>> to do its thing yet, so sometimes you get a lousy plan.
>
> May be introducing something like 'AutoAnalyze' threshold will help? I mean
> that any insert/update/delete statement that changes more then x% of table
> (and no less then y records) must do analyze right after it was finished.
> Defaults like x=50 y=10000 should be quite good as for me.

That would actually be a pessimization for many real world cases.  Consider:

COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
SELECT

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Andy Colson
Date:
Subject: Re: Get master-detail relationship metadata
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...