Re: [FEATURE PATCH] pg_stat_statements with plans

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julian Markwort <julian(dot)markwort(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, marius(dot)timmer(at)uni-muenster(dot)de, arne(dot)scheffer(at)uni-muenster(dot)de
Subject: Re: [FEATURE PATCH] pg_stat_statements with plans
Date: 2017-03-04 13:18:16
Message-ID: 206d380c-adea-712d-131e-03d3b3cbf7d0@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/25/17 12:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 25 January 2017 at 17:34, Julian Markwort
> <julian(dot)markwort(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> wrote:
>
>> Analogous to this, a bad_plan is saved, when the time has been exceeded by a
>> factor greater than 1.1 .
> ...and the plan differs?
>
> Probably best to use some stat math to calculate deviation, rather than fixed %.

Yeah, it seems to me too that this needs a bit more deeper analysis. I
don't see offhand why a 10% deviation in execution time would be a
reasonable threshold for "good" or "bad". A deviation approach like you
allude to would be better.

The other problem is that this measures execution time, which can vary
for reasons other than plan. I would have expected that the cost
numbers are tracked somehow.

There is also the issue of generic vs specific plans, which this
approach might be papering over.

Needs more thought.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-03-04 13:33:48 Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-03-04 13:08:45 Re: PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum and bt_page_items(bytea)