Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: stats_block_level

From: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jones Erik <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>, Hatcher Kimberly <kim(at)myemma(dot)com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: stats_block_level
Date: 2007-07-27 23:45:34
Message-ID: 8B66357B-A288-40CE-9717-AFA35B92C161@decibel.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So maybe the *real* question to ask is why we have separate GUCs for
> stats_row_level and stats_block_level.  Shouldn't we fold them into a
> single switch?  It's hard to see what having just one of them  
> turned on
> will save.

IIRC, the guys at Emma have seen a performance difference with  
stats_block_level off and row_level on, presumable due in part to  
having 150k tables.

Erik? Kim?
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-07-28 01:22:21
Subject: Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes
Previous:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2007-07-27 23:38:48
Subject: Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group