|From:||Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Pavel Trukhanov <pavel(dot)trukhanov(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 06:19:02PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> I would like to start another thread to follow up on , mostly to bump up the
> topic. Just to remind, it's about how pg_stat_statements jumbling ArrayExpr in
> queries like:
> SELECT something FROM table WHERE col IN (1, 2, 3, ...)
> The current implementation produces different jumble hash for every different
> number of arguments for essentially the same query. Unfortunately a lot of ORMs
> like to generate these types of queries, which in turn leads to
> pg_stat_statements pollution. Ideally we want to prevent this and have only one
> record for such a query.
> As the result of  I've identified two highlighted approaches to improve this
> * Reduce the generated ArrayExpr to an array Const immediately, in cases where
> all the inputs are Consts.
> * Make repeating Const to contribute nothing to the resulting hash.
> I've tried to prototype both approaches to find out pros/cons and be more
> specific. Attached patches could not be considered a completed piece of work,
> but they seem to work, mostly pass the tests and demonstrate the point. I would
> like to get some high level input about them and ideally make it clear what is
> the preferred solution to continue with.
I've implemented the second approach mentioned above, this version was
tested on our test clusters for some time without visible issues. Will
create a CF item and would appreciate any feedback.
|Next Message||Andrew Dunstan||2020-11-18 16:52:16||Re: Is postgres ready for 2038?|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2020-11-18 15:49:33||Re: Tab complete for CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER statement|