Hi,
I am not sure if it is bug or not but I found some strange behaviour. Maybe it is the same as described on http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14616.1244317...@sss.pgh.pa.us ?). If yes - I'm sorry for the trouble, but I think that my example is more obvious. Tested on PostgreSQL 9.2.4 and 9.2.6. Console 1: BEGIN; DECLARE a CURSOR FOR SELECT * FROM tab; --- Keep cursor open for disallow full vacuum of tab Console 2: SELECT count(*) FROM tab; ---- Result: 3588; select reltuples from pg_class where relname='table'; --- Result: 3588 UPDATE tab SET id=id; UPDATE tab SET id=id; UPDATE tab SET id=id; VACUUM ANALYZE tab; select reltuples from pg_class where relname='table'; --- Result: 3588 Now wait few seconds :) select reltuples from pg_class where relname='table'; --- Result: 12560 VACUUM ANALYZE tab; select reltuples from pg_class where relname='table'; --- Result: 3588 There is 3588 live records and 12560 live+dead records in table. That is strange for me. VACUUM updates pg_class.reltuples differently (only live roiws count) than autovacuum (live and dead rows). Why? Also in planning: explain SELECT id FROM tab; QUERY PLAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seq Scan on tab (cost=0.00..1074.60 rows=12560 width=4) Estimation is done with the use of current pg_class.reltuples value. This value includes dead rows count after autovacuum so estimation is bad, especially in more complex planner tree, for example: Explain SELECT a.id FROM tab AS a JOIN tab AS b USING (id); QUERY PLAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Nested Loop (cost=0.00..6410.70 rows=12560 width=4) -> Seq Scan on tab a (cost=0.00..1074.60 rows=12560 width=8) -> Index Only Scan using tab_pkey on tab b (cost=0.00..0.41 rows=1 width=4) Index Cond: (id = a.id) PostgreSQL estimates 12560 records in query result. This is wrong estimation if dead tuples are removed during seq scan or index scan (I suppose that it is). I don't think that AUTOVACUUM and VACUUM ANALYZE should behave differently :( -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Artur Zajac
