On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 08:24:29AM -0600, Dan Falconer wrote:
> up. I think the problem really was resolved by the vacuum analyze
> + restart slons... my co-worker was talking to me about it, and
> mentioned that it may be something along the lines of what happens
> in Perl with prepared statements: it gets a good plan right away,
> but if the table grows too fast during that time, the plan becomes
> "stale" and more intensive.
Sort of. The basic issue is that, if the planning step happens at a
time when the table doesn't have a representative distribution, then
the plan will in fact be wrong for the query, and you'll get a poor
plan. But also, the ANALYZE step gets better statistics about the
table. If the samples are poorly representative of the actual data,
you'll get lousy plan, and things won't work as you expect.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The year's penultimate month" is not in truth a good way of saying
November.
--H.W. Fowler
_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
