From: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay |
Date: | 2024-06-10 20:12:46 |
Message-ID: | A0935130-7C4B-4094-B6E4-C7D5086D50EF@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> This sounds like useful information to me.
> Thanks for looking at it!
The VacuumDelay is the only visibility available to
gauge the cost_delay. Having this information
advertised by pg_stat_progress_vacuum as is being proposed
is much better. However, I also think that the
"number of times" the vacuum went into delay will be needed
as well. Both values will be useful to tune cost_delay and cost_limit.
It may also make sense to accumulate the total_time in delay
and the number of times delayed in a cumulative statistics [0]
view to allow a user to trend this information overtime.
I don't think this info fits in any of the existing views, i.e.
pg_stat_database, so maybe a new view for cumulative
vacuum stats may be needed. This is likely a separate
discussion, but calling it out here.
>> IIUC you'd need to get information from both pg_stat_progress_vacuum and
>> pg_stat_activity in order to know what percentage of time was being spent
>> in cost delay. Is that how you'd expect for this to be used in practice?
> Yeah, one could use a query such as:
> select p.*, now() - a.xact_start as duration from pg_stat_progress_vacuum p JOIN pg_stat_activity a using (pid)
Maybe all progress views should just expose the "beentry->st_activity_start_timestamp "
to let the user know when the current operation began.
Regards,
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/monitoring-stats.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-06-10 20:46:56 | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-06-10 20:04:11 | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |