Matthew T. O'Connor escribió: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> This is an interesting idea, but I think it's attacking the wrong >>> problem. To me, the problem here is that an ANALYZE should not block >>> CREATE INDEX or certain forms of ALTER TABLE. >> >> I doubt that that will work; in particular I'm pretty dubious that you >> can safely make CREATE INDEX and VACUUM run together. Since they'd be >> unlikely to be using the identical OldestXmin horizon, you'd likely end >> up with dangling index entries (ie, CREATE INDEX indexes a tuple that >> the VACUUM removes shortly afterward). > > I think the main issue is ANALYZE not VACUUM (at least in this thread) > since it's DB load times that are in question.
Right. Autovac will not issue VACUUM against the freshly restored tables anyway, since there are no deleted tuples. > Can CREATE INDEX and ANALYZE be made to run concurrently? I don't see why not (except for the fact that both try to update reltuples and relpages AFAIR, so we would need to be careful about that). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
