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
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 |
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 |