Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2

Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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

OK, so that seems comparable to my results on a dual Xeon ... probably,
both your machine and my newer one have fast-to-read clock hardware.
We need to get some numbers from one of the people who have complained
about EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead.

I'll have to try the stats-collection-active case on my machines, too.
I was still planning to look into removing the buffer process to reduce
context-swap overhead for stats collection ...

regards, tom lane