Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr

On 2013-12-10 16:09:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure that I agree, but there is anecdata that suggests that it
> > isn't uncommon for these sorts of queries to be broken out when
> > they're all traceable back to a single point in the application
> > (apparently it's common for Django apps to do so, perhaps
> > questionably). If we assume that doing what I've described has no real
> > downside, then it would probably be worth implementing. Plus I'm
> > pretty sure that tools that do regex normalization are already doing
> > something analogous. Thoughts?
>
> Sounds like this:
>
> // What's the worst thing that could happen?
> pandoras_box.open();
>
> I am very wary of implementing special-case logic here even though I
> know it could be useful to some people, simply because I fear that
> there could be a near-infinite variety of situations where, in a
> particular environment, a particular distinction isn't important. We
> won't be serving anyone well if we ignore all of those distinctions,
> because not everyone will want to ignore all of them. And adding a
> configuration option for each one doesn't sound like a good idea,
> either. *Maybe* this particular case is narrow enough that it's OK to
> just ignore it unconditionally and maybe that'd be OK ... but I fear
> this is a rathole.

FWIW, I hit exactly this issue every single time I have looked at
pg_stat_statements in some client's database making it nearly useless
for analysis. So improving it might be worthwile.

On the other hand, so far all could fix their application in a
reasonable amount of time to generate = ANY(array) queries
instead. Which probably isn't a bad idea either, considering they now
use far fewer prepared statements.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services