Re: random_page_cost = 2.0 on Heroku Postgres

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca>
Cc: Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: random_page_cost = 2.0 on Heroku Postgres
Date: 2012-02-12 23:37:14
Message-ID: CAEYLb_WvD6gyibab7w=tCF4dQ7qD5AQjxGF348gZJM+r=oNhJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 12 February 2012 22:28, Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca> wrote:
> Yes, I think if we could normalize, anonymize, and randomly EXPLAIN
> ANALYZE 0.1% of all queries that run on our platform we could look for
> bad choices by the planner. I think the potential here could be quite
> remarkable.

Tom Lane suggested that plans, rather than the query tree, might be a
more appropriate thing for the new pg_stat_statements to be hashing,
as plans should be directly blamed for execution costs. While I don't
think that that's appropriate for normalisation (consider that there'd
often be duplicate pg_stat_statements entries per query), it does seem
like an idea that could be worked into a future revision, to detect
problematic plans. Maybe it could be usefully combined with
auto_explain or something like that (in a revision of auto_explain
that doesn't necessarily explain every plan, and therefore doesn't pay
the considerable overhead of that instrumentation across the board).

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message CSS 2012-02-13 21:49:38 Re: rough benchmarks, sata vs. ssd
Previous Message Peter van Hardenberg 2012-02-12 22:28:27 Re: random_page_cost = 2.0 on Heroku Postgres