Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at> wrote: >> This is a review of the patch in 5192d7d2.8020...@catalyst.net.nz >> >> The patch applies cleanly (with the exception of catversion.h of course), >> compiles without warnings and passes the regression tests. >> >> It contains enough documentation, though I'd prefer >> "Estimated number of rows modified since the table was last analyzed" >> to >> "Estimated number of row changes (inserts + updates + deletes) since the >> last analyze" >> >> The patch works as it should, and I think that this is a >> useful addition. It only exposes a value that is already >> available internally, so there shouldn't be any penalties. >> >> I think that the column name is ok as it is, even if it >> is a bit long - I cannot come up with a more succinct >> idea. Perhaps "n_changed_since_analyze" could be shortened >> to "n_mod_since_analyze", but that's not much of an improvement. > > AFAICT it's related to "n_live_tup", and "n_dead_tup". How about just > "n_mod_tup"? Though that doesn't convey that it's since the last > analyze, I guess. > > But given that both n_dead_tup and n_live_tup don't really indicate > that they're not "since the beginning of stats" in the name (which > other stats counters are), I'm not sure that's a problem? It would be > a name that sounds more similar to the rest of the table.
I don't get that. As far as I know, n_dead_tup and n_live_tup are estimates for the total number of live and dead tuples, period. Both numbers are not reset to zero when ANALYZE (or even VACUUM) takes place. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
