Gregory Stark wrote: > "Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Gregory Stark wrote: > > > > > is it possible it's related to the performance drop immediately > > > following a vacuum analyze we've been seeing? > > > > I don't think so, unless you were counting on pgstats data of shared > > tables for something. The optimizer, for one, doesn't, so I doubt it > > would affect query planning. And it would only affect you if your > > queries were using shared tables, which I very much doubt ... > > Does anything use the pgstats data for anything other than presenting feedback > to users?
Not that I know of. > Autovacuum uses it to estimate when tables should be vacuumed right? Yep > This wouldn't have caused autovacuum to go nuts vacuuming these tables > would it? But I doubt even then that it could consume much i/o > bandwidth. Yes but keep in mind that these are only the shared tables: pg_database, pg_authid, pg_shdepend, etc. Those are not tables that you're going to use regularly, much less _bloat_ regularly that they need frequent vacuuming. Maybe pg_shdepend, because it would be used when creating temp tables. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ "Postgres is bloatware by design: it was built to house PhD theses." (Joey Hellerstein, SIGMOD annual conference 2002) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
