| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
| Date: | 2006-09-07 22:52:10 |
| Message-ID: | 200609072252.k87MqAu09347@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > If you are using an external tool, can't you just restrict what you
> > display based on the logged duration?
>
> I think his basic complaint is that doing the full logging pushup for
> even short-duration queries is too expensive, and that logging only the
> duration and not the query text or parameters makes a significant speed
> difference. I'm not at all sure that I buy that, but if it's true then
> subsequent filtering obviously doesn't help.
Well, except for bind, all the log output display is zero cost, just a
printf(), as I remember. The only cost that is significant, I think, is
the timing of the query, and that is happening for all the setttings
discussed.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-07 22:58:30 | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2006-09-07 22:50:15 | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |