|From:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: New GUC to sample log queries|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 31 May 2018 at 06:44, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info> wrote:
> Here is a naive SELECT only bench with a dataset which fit in ram (scale factor
> = 100) and PGDATA and log on a ramdisk:
> shared_buffers = 4GB
> seq_page_cost = random_page_cost = 1.0
> logging_collector = on (no rotation)
It would be better to just: SELECT 1; to try to get the true overhead
of the additional logging code.
> I don't know the cost of random() call?
It's probably best to test in Postgres to see if there's an overhead
to the new code. It may be worth special casing the 0 and 1 case so
random() is not called.
+ (random() < log_sample_rate * MAX_RANDOM_VALUE);
this should be <=, or you'll randomly miss logging a query when
log_sample_rate is 1.0 every 4 billion or so queries.
Of course, it would be better if we had a proper profiler, but I can
see your need for this. Enabling logging of all queries in production
is currently reserved for people with low traffic servers and the
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
|Next Message||Carter Thaxton||2018-05-31 01:49:06||Re: Add --include-table-data-where option to pg_dump, to export only a subset of table data|
|Previous Message||Thomas Munro||2018-05-30 22:57:30||Re: Undo logs|