On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 7:51 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 5:46 PM wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:10:16 -0500 Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm not sure if you kept the line, but you have ellipsed-out ( is that
>> >> a word? )
>>
>>
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 5:46 PM wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:10:16 -0500 Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure if you kept the line, but you have ellipsed-out ( is that
> >> a word? )
>
> ellipse: curve
> ellipsis: ...
>
>
Though in contect "redacted" makes sense too.
David J.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:10:16 -0500 Ron Johnson wrote:
>> I'm not sure if you kept the line, but you have ellipsed-out ( is that
>> a word? )
ellipse: curve
ellipsis: ...
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 12:20 PM Francisco Olarte
wrote:
> Ron:
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 03:39, Ron Johnson wrote:
> ...
> > Three of the 71 tables were not analyzed. Why would that be?
> ...
> > vacuumdb -U postgres -h $DbServer --analyze -j6 -t ... -t
> cds.cdstransaction_rp20_y2021 -t ...
Ron:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 03:39, Ron Johnson wrote:
...
> Three of the 71 tables were not analyzed. Why would that be?
...
> vacuumdb -U postgres -h $DbServer --analyze -j6 -t ... -t
> cds.cdstransaction_rp20_y2021 -t ...
...
> cds.cdstransaction_rp20_y2021 | 2023-12-13 10:42:09.683143-05
vacuumdb 15.3
database instance: 9.6.24
I manually analyzed 71 tables this morning at 10:42. (All those with
"rp20_y2021" in the relname.)
Three of the 71 tables were not analyzed. Why would that be?
(Five were not vacuumed, but I accept that some other process might have
blocked them.)
