On 12/6/13 3:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-12-05 17:52:34 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Has anyone ever thought about opportunistic ANALYZE piggy-backing on
other full-table scans? That doesn't really help Greg, because his
complaint is mostly that a fresh ANALYZE is too expensive, but it
could be an interesting, albeit risky approach.
What I've been thinking of is
a) making it piggy back on scans vacuum is doing instead of doing
separate ones all the time (if possible, analyze needs to be more
frequent). Currently with quite some likelihood the cache will be gone
again when revisiting.
FWIW, if synchronize_seqscans is on I'd think it'd be pretty easy to fire up a
2nd backend to do the ANALYZE portion (or perhaps use Robert's fancy new shared
memory stuff).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
