Re: Partitioning versus autovacuum

2019-12-02 Thread yuzuko
Hello Greg, > At the risk of forking this thread... I think there's actually a > planner estimation bug here too. > I think that is not a bug. The estimation error occurred there were no parent's statistics. We should run analyze on *partitioned table*. Here is your test case: create table p (i

Re: Partitioning versus autovacuum

2019-10-18 Thread Greg Stark
At the risk of forking this thread... I think there's actually a planner estimation bug here too. Consider this test case of a simple partitioned table and a simple join. The cardinality estimates for each partition and the Append node are all perfectly accurate. But the estimate for the join is w

Re: Partitioning versus autovacuum

2019-10-03 Thread Amit Langote
Hi Greg, On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 4:03 AM Greg Stark wrote: > > Actually -- I'm sorry to followup to myself (twice) -- but that's > wrong. That Todo item predates the modern partitioning code. It came > from when the partitioned statistics were added for inheritance trees. > The resulting comment a

Re: Partitioning versus autovacuum

2019-09-30 Thread Greg Stark
Actually -- I'm sorry to followup to myself (twice) -- but that's wrong. That Todo item predates the modern partitioning code. It came from when the partitioned statistics were added for inheritance trees. The resulting comment almost doesn't make sense any more since it talks about updates to the

Re: Partitioning versus autovacuum

2019-09-30 Thread Greg Stark
Actually I did just find it in the To-do wiki: Have autoanalyze of parent tables occur when child tables are modified - http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-06/msg00137.php On Mon., Sep. 30, 2019, 1:48 p.m. Greg Stark, wrote: > So we now support `ANALYZE partitioned_table