Re: PG Statistics

From: "mcelroy, tim" <tim(dot)mcelroy(at)bostonstock(dot)com>
To: 'Michael Fuhr' <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
Cc: "'pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG Statistics
Date: 2006-03-14 13:50:04
Message-ID: 0C4841B42F87D51195BD00B0D020F5CB044B2469@morpheus.bostonstock.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Thank you for the insight Michael. I'll be performing some tests with the
various setting on/off this week and will post the results.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Fuhr [mailto:mike(at)fuhr(dot)org]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:19 PM
To: mcelroy, tim
Cc: 'pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org'
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PG Statistics

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 06:49:39PM -0500, mcelroy, tim wrote:
> Does anyone know how much of a performance hit turning stats_block_level
and
> stats_row_level on will incur? Do both need to be on to gather cache
> related statistics? I know the annotated_conf_80 document states to only
> turn them on for debug but if they're not that performance intensive I
> cannot see the harm.

I ran some tests a few months ago and found that stats_command_string
had a significant impact, whereas stats_block_level and stats_row_level
were almost negligible. Here are my test results:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-12/msg00307.php

Your results may vary. If you see substantially different results
then please post the particulars.

--
Michael Fuhr

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mcelroy, tim 2006-03-14 13:51:17 Re: PG Statistics
Previous Message andremachado 2006-03-14 12:02:49 firebird X postgresql 8.1.2 windows, performance comparison