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

From Laurenz Albe
Subject Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id fae7e128fd78965a1fa4dc9c571a9f5187d16f85.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 16:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Maybe (all?) the clarification the docs need is to say:
> > "Partitioned tables are not *themselves* processed by autovacuum."
>
> Yes, I think the lack of autovacuum needs to be specifically mentioned
> since most people assume autovacuum handles _all_ statistics updating.
>
> Can someone summarize how bad it is we have no statistics on partitioned
> tables?  It sounds bad to me.

Andrey Lepikhov had an example earlier in this thread[1].  It doesn't take
an exotic query.

Attached is a new version of my patch that tries to improve the wording.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

 [1]: https://postgr.es/m/3df5c68b-13aa-53d0-c0ec-ed98e6972e2e%40postgrespro.ru

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Issue with psql's create_help.pl under perlcritic
Next
From: Jelte Fennema
Date:
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Support using "all" for the db user in pg_ident.conf