Sean Shanny wrote:
Tom,
The Analyze did in fact fix the issue. Thanks.
--sean
Given the fact that you are using pg_autovacuum, you have to consider
a few points:
1) Is out there a buggy version that will not analyze big tables.
2) The autovacuum fail in scenarios with big tables not eavy updated,
Tom,
The Analyze did in fact fix the issue. Thanks.
--sean
On 9/27/04 11:54 PM, "Sean Shanny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> We have been running pg_autovacuum on this entire DB so I did not even
> consider that. I am running an analyze verbose now.
>
> We should see about 82mm rows
Tom,
We have been running pg_autovacuum on this entire DB so I did not even
consider that. I am running an analyze verbose now.
We should see about 82mm rows that will match the Filter: ((date_key >= 610)
AND (date_key <= 631))
I'll update in an hour or so.
--sean
On 9/27/04 11:49 PM, "Tom L
Sean Shanny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -> Seq Scan on f_pageviews t1 (cost=0.00..11762857.88
> rows=1 width=8)
> Filter: ((date_key >= 610) AND (date_key <= 631))
How many rows are actually going to match that filter condition? (The
symptoms seem