On Monday, July 28, 2025, Frédéric Yhuel <frederic.yh...@dalibo.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/28/25 16:47, Nathan Bossart wrote: > >> I can't remember who wrote this line, but it was borrowed from the >> --analyze-in-stages description. The point is that if you use >> --analyze-in-stages without --missing-stats-only, there will be a period >> where existing statistics will be replaced with ones generated with lower >> statistics targets. >> > > Aha, it makes sense now, thank you! > > Obviously, this wording isn't clear enough. We might >> need to either remove that sentence or add "When used in conjunction with >> --analyze-in-stages..." >> > > I vote for the second option. > > Makes sense. This does beg the question - what happens if a column is left with a lower statistics target than what would be applied during an analyze, but one is present? I don’t see where the statistics target is saved anywhere. Can we start recording that piece of data and teach analyze in stages to just never go backwards - reporting any it had to skip to adhere to that rule. Seems like a better policy than missing-only. David J.
