Re: Add parallel columns for seq scan and index scan on pg_stat_all_tables and _indexes

Le lun. 11 nov. 2024 à 03:05, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> a
écrit :

> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 06:24:54PM +0300, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> > yes, I agree with you. Even when I experimented with vacuum settings for
> > database and used my vacuum statistics patch [0] for analyzes , I first
> > looked at this change in the number of blocks or deleted rows at the
> > database level,
> > and only then did an analysis of each table and index.
> >
> > [0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/50/5012/
>
> As hinted on other related threads like around [1], I am so-so about
> the proposal of these numbers at table and index level now that we
> have e7a9496de906 and 5d4298e75f25.
>
> In such cases, I apply the concept that I call the "Mention Bien" (or
> when you get a baccalaureat diploma with honors and with a 14~16/20 in
> France). What we have is not perfect, still it's good enough to get
> a 14/20 IMO, making hopefully 70~80% of users happy with these new
> metrics. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd be curious to know if this
> thread's proposal is required at all at the end.
>
>
I agree with you. We'll see if we need more, but it's already good to have
the metrics already commited.

> I have not looked at the logging proposal yet.
>
>
I hope you'll have time to look at it. It seems to me very important to get
that kind of info in the logs.

Thanks again.

> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zywxw7vqPLBfVfXN@paquier.xyz
> --
> Michael
>

--
Guillaume.