| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jones Erik <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>, Hatcher Kimberly <kim(at)myemma(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: stats_block_level |
| Date: | 2007-07-27 23:45:34 |
| Message-ID: | 8B66357B-A288-40CE-9717-AFA35B92C161@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So maybe the *real* question to ask is why we have separate GUCs for
> stats_row_level and stats_block_level. Shouldn't we fold them into a
> single switch? It's hard to see what having just one of them
> turned on
> will save.
IIRC, the guys at Emma have seen a performance difference with
stats_block_level off and row_level on, presumable due in part to
having 150k tables.
Erik? Kim?
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-07-28 01:22:21 | Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-07-27 23:38:48 | Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention |