From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro(dot)yamada(dot)tf(at)nttcom(dot)co(dot)jp>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: progress report for ANALYZE |
Date: | 2019-11-27 03:00:14 |
Message-ID: | 20191127030014.GD4161@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Nov-27, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:22 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2019-Nov-26, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
> >
> > > > I wonder whether we need the total number of ext stats on
> > > > pg_stat_progress_analyze or not. As you might know, there is the same
> > > > counter on pg_stat_progress_vacuum and pg_stat_progress_cluster.
> > > > For example, index_vacuum_count and index_rebuild_count.
> > >
> > > Would it be better to add the total number column to these views? :)
> >
> > Yeah, I think it would be good to add that.
>
> Hmm, does it take that long to calculate ext stats on one column? The
> reason it's worthwhile to have index_vacuum_count,
> index_rebuild_count, etc. is because it can take very long for one
> index to get vacuumed/rebuilt.
Yes, it's noticeable. It's not as long as building an index, of course,
but it's a long enough fraction of the total analyze time that it should
be reported.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2019-11-27 03:00:34 | Re: ERROR: attribute number 6 exceeds number of columns 5 |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-27 02:44:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |