From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Per backend relation statistics tracking |
Date: | 2025-08-27 09:46:55 |
Message-ID: | aK7UDwIswOzvMn/x@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 07:18:10AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-08-26 06:38:41 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > > and IO related counters aren't
> > > incremented remotely as often as the scan related counters are.
> >
> > You mean the flush are not triggered as often? If so, yeah that's also something
> > you've mentioned ([1]) and that I've in mind to look at.
>
> I mean that we increment the counters less frequently.
> pgstat_count_heap_getnext() is called for every tuple on a page, which is
> obviously much more frequent than once per page like for IO.
I see. So let's rely on the existing "relation" increments and make use of them
when flushing the relation stats to populate the backend stats (as done in v2
shared up-thread).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2025-08-27 10:11:45 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
Previous Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2025-08-27 09:41:00 | Re: plan shape work |