Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Trukhanov <pavel(dot)trukhanov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Date: 2023-10-13 16:37:30
Message-ID: 20231013163730.GA1362765@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 09:02:56PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:46:11PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Also, it seems counterintuitive that queries with fewer than 10
>> constants are not merged.
>
> Why? What would be your intuition using this feature?

For the "powers" setting, I would've expected queries with 0-9 constants to
be merged. Then 10-99, 100-999, 1000-9999, etc. I suppose there might be
an argument for separating 0 from 1-9, too.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-10-13 17:39:10 Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16.
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2023-10-13 15:28:14 Re: BRIN minmax multi - incorrect distance for infinite timestamp/date