From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |
Date: | 2025-04-09 19:39:32 |
Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0uZJBDman4q4+L6+tx-hQ40pziQbL=_+i9pN0g3nRXNEg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> If we went with your suggestion, I think the final n_ins_since_vacuum column would be 2. Do you think the n_tup_ins should also be 2?
n_ins_since_vacuum should be 2 and n_tup_ins should be 100000.
A user tracks how many inserts they performed with n_tup_ins
to measure load/activity on the database. It's important to also
include aborted transactions in this metric,
n_ins_since_vacuum however is not used to measure database activity,
but is used to drive autovacuum decisions. So, it has a different purpose.
> Should those two columns differ? If so, why?
They will differ because n_tup_ins keeps increasing, while n_ins_since_vacuum is
reset after a vacuum. The issue I see is that n_ins_since_vacuum should only
reflect the number of newly inserted rows that are eligible for
freezing, as described
in pgstat_report_vacuum [0]
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ilia Evdokimov | 2025-04-09 19:40:42 | Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-04-09 19:35:43 | Re: Streaming relation data out of order |