Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>

From: Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net>, Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "david@lang.hm" <david@lang.hm>, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>, "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>

Date: 2011-02-03T09:54:49Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance

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.

Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn