On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2/28/11 10:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, anything which increases the size of pg_statistic
>>>> would be a nightmare.
>
>>> Hmm?
>
>> Like replacing each statistic with a series of time-based buckets, which
>> would then increase the size of the table by 5X to 10X.  That was the
>> first solution I thought of, and rejected.
>
> I think Josh is thinking of the stats collector's dump file, not
> pg_statistic.

Yeah.

> Ultimately we need to think of a reporting mechanism that's a bit
> smarter than "rewrite the whole file for any update" ...

Well, we have these things called "tables".  Any chance of using those?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ... at 2011-02-28 18:50:03 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ... at 2011-02-28 19:31:53 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-02-28 18:58:17
	Subject: Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies
Previous:	From: Josh Berkus	Date: 2011-02-28 18:53:26
	Subject: Re: knngist - 0.8