Re: Blocks read for index scans

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Blocks read for index scans
Date: 2006-04-14 15:12:55
Message-ID: 9369.1145027575@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> In my case it would be helpful to break the heap access numbers out
> between seqscans and index scans, since each of those represents very
> different access patterns. Would adding that be a mess?

Yes; it'd require more counters-per-table than we now keep, thus
nontrivial bloat in the stats collector's tables. Not to mention
incompatible changes in the pgstats views and the underlying functions
(which some apps probably use directly).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Westmacott 2006-04-14 15:36:48 merge>hash>loop
Previous Message Jignesh K. Shah 2006-04-14 14:02:10 Re: bad performance on Solaris 10