| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Per backend relation statistics tracking |
| Date: | 2025-08-26 11:18:10 |
| Message-ID: | uqaqymmcjgryr5jt3rtg7jdle4q54hngpee3fwg7h4z7gu424a@q3532yz7t6uc |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-08-26 11:43:45 | Re: pg_restore --no-policies should not restore policies' comment |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-08-26 11:08:17 | Re: [BUG?] check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint false negative |