| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: suggestion: log_statement = sample |
| Date: | 2009-07-21 19:28:34 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150907211228l77c613aepeb2c8757e2826636@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 13:24 -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
>> In actual practice, full query logging
>> is 1/50 the amount of disk I/O as the actual database activity. If your
>> systems are so stressed that they can't handle another 2% increase, then
>> you've got bigger problems lurking.
>
> It depends on the system. I have seen even big systems take a huge hit
> by full logging due to transactional velocity.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
I've seen this too. On high transaction load systems, log_statement
has big overhead. I haven't tested this lately though, and I suspect
this information is version dependent (in the 'old' days, it used to
be a really big deal).
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-07-21 19:32:07 | Re: ERROR: could not access status of transaction 2495690984 |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-07-21 18:29:12 | Re: element from an array by its index |