From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
Date: | 2006-09-07 22:50:15 |
Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10609071550x5701b926te018649d77bf399f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/8/06, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> If you are using an external tool, can't you just restrict what you
> display based on the logged duration?
It's not a matter of having too much information in our reports (the
more information I have, the happier I am :)). It's a matter of
slowing down too much the server with too much I/O.
We can afford to log every duration and queries slower than 500ms
nearly without any overhead. We can't afford to log every query, it
generates too much I/O - note that we tried to do it and it was really
too slow.
With the former configuration we log 1.2 GB/day, with the latter I
suspect it will be far more than 60 GB/day (I don't have the exact
number as we can't do it for real but queries slower than 500 ms
represents 1/100 of the total amount of queries).
Query logging is really a nice way to monitor the activity of a
PostgreSQL server and the overhead is not that high if logging I/O are
not too intensive.
--
Guillaume
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-07 22:52:10 | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-07 22:45:25 | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |