| From: | "Yotsunaga, Naoki" <yotsunaga(dot)naoki(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Phil Florent <philflorent(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: [Proposal] Add accumulated statistics |
| Date: | 2019-01-11 00:30:47 |
| Message-ID: | 8E9126CB6CE2CD42962059AB0FBF7B0DC9B9F6@g01jpexmbkw23 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:42 PM, Robert Hass wrote:
Thanks for comments.
>or at least not nearly as useful the results of a sampling approach.
I agree with your opinion.
Because it can't be asserted that the wait event is a bottleneck just because the number of wait event is large.
The same thing is mentioned in Oracle.
It also suggests that it is important to acquire waiting time for that.
----
https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/18/tgdba/measuring-database-performance.html#GUID-811E9E65-C64A-4028-A90E-102BBFF6E68F
5.2.3 Using Wait Events without Timed Statistics
----
>The data that LWLOCK_STATS produce are downright misleading
Is that so？
I do not know the need for this function.
---
Naoki Yotsunaga
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-01-11 00:34:28 | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-11 00:05:39 | Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename? |