RE: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)

From: legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
Date: 2019-04-02 07:22:52
Message-ID: DB6PR0301MB2135811EFF4391A031339D5690560@DB6PR0301MB2135.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

>>
>> case avg_tps pct_diff
>> 0 89 278 --
>> 1 88 745 0,6%
>> 2 88 282 1,1%
>> 3 86 660 2,9%
>>
>> This means that even in this extrem test case, the worst degradation is less
>> than 3%
>> (this overhead can be removed using pg_stat_statements.track_planning guc)

> Is the difference between 2 and 3 the extraneous pgss_store call to
> always store the query text if planner hook doesn't have access to the
> query text?

Yes it is,
but I agree it seems a big gap (1,8%) compared to the difference between 1 and 2 (0,5%).
Maybe this is just mesure "noise" ...

Regards
PAscal

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jamison, Kirk 2019-04-02 08:00:55 RE: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VS query mean time
Previous Message Darafei Praliaskouski 2019-04-02 06:58:19 Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing