Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2
Date: 2006-06-22 21:08:50
Message-ID: 7038.1151010530@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-22 21:22:19 Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-22 21:06:14 Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2006-06-22 21:37:31 Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2006-06-22 20:58:35 Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2