| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Kevin Brown" <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: stats_command_string default? |
| Date: | 2003-02-17 02:30:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1148.1045449006@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> My conclusion is that stats_command_string overhead is non-negligible
>> for simple commands. So I stand by my previous opinion that it should
>> not be turned on without the DBA taking explicit action to turn it on.
> How about with the stats_collector on? ie. Recording block and row level
> stats?
Didn't measure that, but I believe the block/row stats are dumped to the
collector once per transaction, so the overhead ought to be roughly
comparable to this test.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlw | 2003-02-17 02:40:08 | Re: location of the configuration files |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-17 01:51:54 | Hard problem with concurrency |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-02-17 03:54:07 | Re: stats_command_string default? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-17 01:32:04 | Re: stats_command_string default? |