Re: A costing analysis tool

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A costing analysis tool
Date: 2005-10-19 18:05:34
Message-ID: 4356449E0200002500000135@gwmta.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Maybe we could associate a set of defaults to runtime_environment,
and you would associate any overrides with the runtime_options.

Does this address both your concerns?

>>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> >>>
Kevin,

> When it gets downt to the detail, it may make sense to combine
> or split some of these. For example, runtime_options should
> probably not have a column for each currently known option,
> but a child table which maps to all non-default option values.

I'm a little cautious about storing only non-defaults; the defaults have

changed from version to version, after all. If we did that, we'd need
to
have a "defaults" table in the db as a reference list.

Also, we'll need to store runtime options both on the "machine" level
and
on the "query" level, in order to allow testing of changing an enable_*
or
other query cost option at runtime. Not sure how to capture this,
though.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-10-19 18:15:20 Re: A costing analysis tool
Previous Message Robert Treat 2005-10-19 18:01:40 Re: A costing analysis tool