From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index overhead cost reporting |
Date: | 2013-12-07 20:50:12 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv571jcZMOauAhWV8GoOpNXx8FaoHtQa9CEoPjcW3s_5Xg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 December 2013 20:44, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>> So in essence, I'd only be looking for a breakdown of anything that
>> adds to the duration of the DML statement. However, it sounds like
>> even that isn't straightforward from what you've written.
>
> I think that would be reasonably straightforward, though perhaps too
> expensive depending on the speed of clock reading. My larger point was
> that I don't think that that alone is a fair measure of the cost of
> maintaining an index, which is what you had claimed to be interested in.
Point taken. Yes, I don't believe I was that clear. This was a "how
much of my DML statement time was spent updating indexes" rather than
a "give me stats on index maintenance times for these indexes".
It's a shame that it comes at a non-trivial price.
Thom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2013-12-07 21:27:39 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-07 20:44:34 | Re: Index overhead cost reporting |