2010/12/23 Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>:
> Dne 20.12.2010 00:03, Tom Lane napsal(a):
>> I wrote:
>>> 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
> OK, so here goes the simplified patch - it tracks one reset timestamp
> for a background writer and for each database.
I think you forgot the attachment.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tomas Vondra||Date: 2010-12-23 19:39:40|
|Subject: Re: proposal : cross-column stats|
|Previous:||From: Tomas Vondra||Date: 2010-12-23 17:47:53|
|Subject: Re: keeping a timestamp of the last stats reset (for a
db, table and function)|