From: | Kouber Saparev <kouber(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Indexes documentation bug |
Date: | 2022-04-04 14:11:45 |
Message-ID: | CAN4RuQvo-ZAm0HBWLLPp80aSM+15fC4N1bE=iATXzaS9D5ShMw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
My bad, yes indeed, the view is different.
На пн, 4.04.2022 г. в 17:01 ч. Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> написа:
> Kouber Saparev <kouber(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I believe there is an error within this sentence in section
> >
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/monitoring-stats.html#MONITORING-PG-STAT-USER-FUNCTIONS-VIEW
>
> > "Therefore, a bitmap scan increments the
> > pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_read count(s)
> > for the index(es) it uses, and it increments the pg_stat_all_tables.
> > idx_tup_fetch count for the table, but it does not affect
> > pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_fetch."
>
> > There is repeated mentioning of pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_fetch while I
> > suppose one should read pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_scan instead the second
> > time. I.e. bitmap scans do not increment idx_scan.
>
> Um ... you did notice that the mentions of idx_tup_fetch apply to two
> different views, pg_stat_all_tables vs pg_stat_all_indexes?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2022-04-04 15:54:15 | Add further details to ROW SHARE table level lock modes section |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-04 14:01:31 | Re: Indexes documentation bug |