From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal - log_full_scan |
Date: | 2021-04-17 16:54:50 |
Message-ID: | 20210417165450.wtblqyuxr7sbfetr@nol |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 05:22:59PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> The fullscan of this table needs about 30ms and has 200K rows. So
> decreasing log_min_duration to this value is very risky.
>
> [...]
>
> I use pg_stat_all_tables.seq_scan and I see seq scans there. But I need to
> know the related queries.
Maybe you could use pg_qualstats ([1]) for that? It will give you the list of
quals (with the underlying queryid) with a tag to specify if they were executed
as an index scan or a sequential scan. It wouldn't detect queries doing
sequential scan that don't have any qual for the underlying relations, but
those shouldn't be a concern in your use case.
If you setup some sampling, the overhead should be minimal.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-04-17 17:54:34 | Re: proposal - log_full_scan |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-04-17 16:35:45 | Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions |