> mark.kirkwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 03.05.2013 00:19: >> I think the idea of telling postgres that we are doing a load is >> probably >> the wrong way to go about this. We have a framework that tries to >> automatically figure out the best plans...I think some more thought >> about >> how to make that understand some of the more subtle triggers for a >> time-to-do-new-plans moment is the way to go. I understand this is >> probably hard - and may imply some radical surgery to how the stats >> collector and planner interact. > > I wonder if "freezing" (analyze, then disable autovacuum) the statistics > for the large number of rows would work. > > > I'm thinking that the issue is actually the opposite - it is that a new plan is needed because the new (uncomitted) rows are changing the data distribution. So we want more plan instability rather than plan stability :-) Cheers Mark -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
