Ben Chobot writes:
> And unfortunately, Tom, we're not resetting stats counters. :(
Mph. Well, the other thing that comes to mind is that n_live_tup
(and n_dead_tup) is typically updated by ANALYZE, but only to an
estimate based on ANALYZE's partial sample of the table. If the
sample isn't very
On Feb 10, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Ben Chobot wrote:
>> I'm looking at pg_stat_user_tables in 8.4.2, and I'm confused about
>> n_live_tup. Shouldn't that be at least fairly close to (n_tup_ins -
>> n_tup-del)? It doesn't seem to be, but I'm unclear why.
>>
> Insert 2000 tuples.
Greg Smith writes:
> Ben Chobot wrote:
>> I'm looking at pg_stat_user_tables in 8.4.2, and I'm confused about
>> n_live_tup. Shouldn't that be at least fairly close to (n_tup_ins -
>> n_tup-del)? It doesn't seem to be, but I'm unclear why.
>>
> Insert 2000 tuples.
> Delete 1000 tuples.
> vacuum
Ben Chobot wrote:
I'm looking at pg_stat_user_tables in 8.4.2, and I'm confused about n_live_tup.
Shouldn't that be at least fairly close to (n_tup_ins - n_tup-del)? It doesn't
seem to be, but I'm unclear why.
Insert 2000 tuples.
Delete 1000 tuples.
vacuum
Insert 1000 tuples. These go into
On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ben Chobot wrote:
> I'm looking at pg_stat_user_tables in 8.4.2, and I'm confused about
> n_live_tup. Shouldn't that be at least fairly close to (n_tup_ins -
> n_tup-del)? It doesn't seem to be, but I'm unclear why.
Is everybody else unclear as well?
--
Sent via pg
I'm looking at pg_stat_user_tables in 8.4.2, and I'm confused about n_live_tup.
Shouldn't that be at least fairly close to (n_tup_ins - n_tup-del)? It doesn't
seem to be, but I'm unclear why.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscripti
