Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2

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