Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id ZSAzznpXcQZeW9uG@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables  (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct  2, 2023 at 04:48:20AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 22:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Very good point!   Updated patch attached.
> 
> Thanks!  Some small corrections:
> 
> > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml
> > index 9cf9d030a8..be1c522575 100644
> > --- a/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml
> > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml
> > @@ -861,10 +861,16 @@ analyze threshold = analyze base threshold + analyze scale factor * number of tu
> >     </para>
> >  
> >     <para>
> > -    Partitioned tables are not processed by autovacuum.  Statistics
> > -    should be collected by running a manual <command>ANALYZE</command> when it is
> > -    first populated, and again whenever the distribution of data in its
> > -    partitions changes significantly.
> > +    Partitioned tables do not directly store tuples and consequently
> > +    autovacuum does not <command>VACUUM</command> them.  (Autovacuum does
> 
> ... does not <command>VACUUM</command> or <command>ANALYZE</command> them.
> 
> Perhaps it would be shorter to say "does not process them" like the
> original wording.
> 
> > +    perform <command>VACUUM</command> on table partitions just like other
> 
> Just like *on* other tables, right?

Good points, updated patch attached.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michał Kłeczek
Date:
Subject: FDW LIM IT pushdown
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby