On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Carlo Stonebanks
wrote:
> Thanks for the insight. How much more of a server's resources will be
> consumed by an ANALYZE with default_statistics_target = 100?
I don't think it will be much of a problem, especially since
autovacuum will do only the tables that need
HI Greg,
Thanks for the insight. How much more of a server's resources will be
consumed by an ANALYZE with default_statistics_target = 100?
We have two environments hosting the same data. One is our "live" server,
which serves the web site, and this hosts our published data, not more than
2
Carlo Stonebanks wrote:
The whole topic of messing with stats makes my head spin but I am
concerned about some horridly performing queries that have had bad
rows estimates and others which always choose seq scans when indexes
are available. Reading up on how to improve planner estimates, I have
Carlo Stonebanks wrote:
> The whole topic of messing with stats makes my head spin but I am concerned
> about some horridly performing queries that have had bad rows estimates and
> others which always choose seq scans when indexes are available. Reading up
> on how to improve planner estimates,
Hi people,
The whole topic of messing with stats makes my head spin but I am concerned
about some horridly performing queries that have had bad rows estimates and
others which always choose seq scans when indexes are available. Reading up
on how to improve planner estimates, I have seen refere
