Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas escribi?: > > > Which raises the issue, if we could get better statistics by passing > > > the whole table, why not do that when VACUUM ANALYZE is run? > > > > I think the reason is "because the next autovacuum would undo it". > > Is there any way to "merge" the statistics? i.e. if a full table scan > is done to compute precise statistics, and later a regular analyze scan > is done, then perhaps instead of clobbering the previous stats, you > merge them with the new ones, thus not completely losing those previous > ones.
Crazy idea, but if a partial analyze finds that 5% of the table has changed since the last full analyze, but 10% of the statistics are different, we know something is wrong. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
