From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [rfc] overhauling pgstat.stat |
Date: | 2013-09-04 12:13:17 |
Message-ID: | 20130904121317.GY2706@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Satoshi,
* Satoshi Nagayasu (snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp) wrote:
> (2013/09/04 13:07), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >We already changed it:
> >
> > commit 187492b6c2e8cafc5b39063ca3b67846e8155d24
> > Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
> > Date: Mon Feb 18 17:56:08 2013 -0300
> >
> > Split pgstat file in smaller pieces
>
> Thanks for the comments. I forgot to mention that.
>
> Yes, we have already split single pgstat.stat file into
> several pieces.
>
> However, we still need to read/write large amount of statistics
> data when we have a large number of tables in single database
> or multiple databases being accessed. Right?
Would simply also splitting per tablespace help?
> I think the issue here is that it is necessary to write/read
> statistics data even it's not actually changed.
>
> So, I'm wondering how we can minimize read/write operations
> on these statistics data files with using heap and btree.
It does sound like an interesting idea to use heap/btree instead but I
wonder about the effort involved, particularly around coordinating
access. We wouldn't want to end up introducing additional contention
points by doing this..
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-09-04 12:36:51 | Re: [rfc] overhauling pgstat.stat |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2013-09-04 11:30:52 | Re: Is it necessary to rewrite table while increasing the scale of datatype numeric??? |