On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that if VACUUM scanned 99% of the table, it's probably fine to
> use its numbers. It's also fine to use the numbers from ANALYZE,
> because those pages are chosen randomly. What bothers me is the idea
> of using a small *non-random* sample, and I'm not sure that
> incorporating possibly-bogus results slowly is any better than
> incorporating them quickly.
In particular, unless I'm misremembering, VACUUM *always* scans the
first few pages of the table, until it sees enough consecutive
all-visible bits that it decides to start skipping. If I'm right
about that, then those pages could easily end up being overweighted
when VACUUM does the counting; especially if ANALYZE or an actual
full-table vacuum aren't allowed to snap the count back to reality.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
