Hi,
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 14:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > If the table is in fact empty, why is it a bad idea to let the
> > statistics reflect that?
>
> I think that this thinking is at least partially obsolete now that
> autovacuum/autoanalyze and plan invalidation are in place. It used to
>
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Devrim GÃNDÃZ wrote:
>> !TRUNCATE rewrites system catalogue entries for
>> !that table, which makes running ANALYZE on a
>> !freshly-truncated table is a bad idea, because the statistics will be
>> !updated to indicate that the table
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
Attached is a doc patch for truncate.sgml. It improves info for
TRUNCATE. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing out this.
--- 34,44
DELETE on each table, but since it does not actually
scan the tables it is faster. Furthermore, it reclaims disk space
i
Attached is a doc patch for truncate.sgml. It improves info for
TRUNCATE. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing out this.
This is against head, but could be backpatched, too, I believe.
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
