From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2 |
Date: | 2006-06-22 21:37:31 |
Message-ID: | 449B0D9B.5030509@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Or do you mean that you have stats_row_level and/or stats_block_level on
>>> in all four cases?
>
>> yes - stats_row_level and stats_block_level on in all cases (sorry for
>> the confusion) - I can easily redo the tests without those - but that's
>> what I had in the running conf and I only remember that after I was
>> nearly done with all the testing :-)
>
> It'd be interesting to compare 8.1 and HEAD for the no-overhead case;
> I don't think you need to redo all four cases, but I'd like to see that one.
8.1: 50,50,49
HEAD: 49,48,49
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-22 21:41:41 | Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-22 21:31:16 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-22 21:41:41 | Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-22 21:08:50 | Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2 |