From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr |
Date: | 2013-12-10 22:42:27 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSVocZjAFGApx+n2TrzNsshkqKj_=ow2kFDa4pH58AsUQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> It's very hard to see where you should spend efforts when every "logical
> query" is split into hundreds of pg_stat_statement entries. Suddenly
> it's important whether a certain counts of parameters are more frequent
> than others because in the equally distributed cases they fall out of
> p_s_s again pretty soon. I think that's probably a worse than average
> case, but certainly not something only I could have the bad fortune of
> looking at.
Another problem is that creating a new entry is relatively expensive,
because we need to acquire an exclusive lock to do so. If there was a
lot of churn, I'd worry that the performance overhead of
pg_stat_statements. It could be quite a lot higher than necessary.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-10 22:46:56 | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-10 22:38:20 | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr |