From: | Eric B(dot)Ridge <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pgsql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How reliable are the stats collector stats? |
Date: | 2004-03-13 06:27:38 |
Message-ID: | 85F782F8-74B7-11D8-8DB5-000A95D98B3E@tcdi.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mar 13, 2004, at 12:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Eric Ridge <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com> writes:
>> Could pg_stats_user_indexes be lying?
>
> Jan probably knows this stuff better than I, but my guess is that if
> the
> counter type you are looking at is incrementing at all, then it's not
> too far off.
Many of the indexes that report zero usage I agree with. Only a few
seem questionable. Double-checking the queries (and their plans) will
provide the only true answer.
> I certainly can't think of a failure mechanism that would
> cause some indexes to be shown with zero hits when other indexes do
> get hits.
This is good to know. I don't have specifics handy, but I've seen a
few columns from the pg_statio_user_tables view come back w/ null
values. Oh yeah, this is against v7.3.4.
>> I realize the real question is "why aren't these indexes being used",
>
> Up to a point. If it's a unique index then you may want the
> uniqueness-check functionality even if the index is never used for
> searches.
Very good point. Fortunately the indexes in question are not unique
indexes.
thanks!
eric
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Edwin Pauli | 2004-03-14 00:34:53 | PostgeSQL problem (server crashed?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-13 05:51:03 | Re: How reliable are the stats collector stats? |