Re: stats_command_string default?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: stats_command_string default?
Date: 2003-02-16 19:26:24
Message-ID: 28529.1045423584@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
>>> Would it make more sense to enable stats_command_string by default?
>>
>> I'd vote against it. If we turn it on by default, people are paying
>> for a feature they may not even know exists. Once they find out about
>> it and decide they want it, they can turn it on easily enough.

> The difference in time over 100000 passes was 20 seconds (44 seconds
> with stats_command_string turned on, 24 with it turned off), for an
> impact of 0.2 milliseconds per command executed.

In other words, more than an eighty percent penalty on simple commands.
Not negligible in my book.

> I have no idea if that's small enough to be considered negligible or
> not, considering the hardware it was running on.

I would imagine that the CPU-time ratio would not depend all that much
on the particular hardware.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-02-16 19:45:01 Re: online reindex
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-16 19:20:38 Re: location of the configuration files

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-02-16 20:55:57 Re: stats_command_string default?
Previous Message Patrick Welche 2003-02-16 18:04:50 Re: [HACKERS] psql and readline