|From:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ...|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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.
>> 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
> 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?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2011-02-28 18:58:17||Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies|
|Previous Message||Josh Berkus||2011-02-28 18:53:26||Re: knngist - 0.8|