> That is not the number of interest. The number of interest is that it's
> 8 bytes added onto a struct that currently contains 11 of 'em; in other
> words a 9% increase in the size of the stats file, and consequently
> about a 9% increase in the cost of updating it.
Wups, sorry, I was looking at the wrong struct. It's actually an
addition of 1 doubleword to a struct of 21 of 'em, or about 5%.
That's still an awful lot in comparison to the prospective usefulness
of the information.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Itagaki Takahiro||Date: 2010-12-20 00:03:56|
|Subject: Re: Extensions, patch v20 (bitrot fixes)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-12-19 22:58:11|
|Subject: Re: keeping a timestamp of the last stats reset (for a db, table and function) |