Re: [HACKERS] Access statistics
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In the next couple of hours (at least tomorrow) I would be > ready to commit the backend changes for table-/index-access > statistics and current backend activity views. > Should I apply the patches or provide a separate patch for > review first? Considering that you've not offered any detailed information about what you plan to do (AFAIR), a patch for review first would be polite ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
AW: [HACKERS] Access statistics
> One more feature for discussion :-) > > In the next couple of hours (at least tomorrow) I would be > ready to commit the backend changes for table-/index-access > statistics and current backend activity views. > > Should I apply the patches or provide a separate patch for > review first? One concern I remember from memory was, that the table names did not conform to the system table semantics of "pg_*". (pgstat_*) Have you, or would you change that ? Andreas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Access statistics
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So outing myself not beeing a *real programmer*, this is what > I have so far: Hmm ... what is the performance of all this like? Seems like a lot of overhead. Can it be turned off? > * Backends call some collector functions at various places > now (these will finally be macros), that count up table > scans, tuples returned by scans, buffer fetches/hits and > the like. Have you removed the existing stats-gathering support (backend/access/heap/stats.c and so on)? That would buy back at least a few of the cycles involved ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] Access statistics
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Have you removed the existing stats-gathering support >> (backend/access/heap/stats.c and so on)? That would buy back >> at least a few of the cycles involved ... > Not sure if we really should. Let's later decide if it's > really obsolete. Considering that Bruce long ago ifdef'd out all the code that could actually *do* anything with those stats (like print them), I'd say it's obsolete. In any case, it's too confusing to have two sets of stats-gathering code in there. I vote for getting rid of the old stuff. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
