Re: [DOCS] Stats views and functions not in order?

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 2:20 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> On 29.11.22 08:29, Peter Smith wrote:
> > PSA v8* patches.
> >
> > Here, patches 0001 and 0002 are unchanged, but 0003 has many changes
> > per David's suggestion [1] to change all these views to <refentry>
> > blocks.
>
> I don't understand what order 0001 is trying to achieve.

The rule behind 0001 is:

All global object stats
All table object stats (stat > statio > xact; all > sys > user)
All index object stats
All sequence object stats
All function object stats

> As an aside, I find the mixing of pg_stat_* and pg_statio_* views
> visually distracting. It was easier to read before when they were in
> separate blocks.
>

I found that having the statio at the end of each object type block added a
natural partitioning for tables and indexes that the existing order lacked
and that made reading the table be more "wall-of-text-ish", and thus more
difficult to read, than necessary.

I'm not opposed to the following though. The object-type driven order just
feels more useful but I really cannot justify it beyond that.

I'm not particularly enamored with the existing single large table but
don't have a better structure to offer at this time.

> I think something like this would be manageable:
>
> <!-- everything related to global objects, alphabetically -->
> pg_stat_archiver
> pg_stat_bgwriter
> pg_stat_database
> pg_stat_database_conflicts
> pg_stat_replication_slots
> pg_stat_slru
> pg_stat_subscription_stats
> pg_stat_wal
>

WAL being adjacent to archiver/bgwriter seemed reasonable so I left that
alone.
Replication and Subscription being adjacent seemed reasonable so I left
that alone.
Thus slru ended up last, with database* remaining as-is.

At 8 items, with a group size average of 2, pure alphabetical is also
reasonable.

> <!-- all "stat" for schema objects, by "importance" -->
>
> <!-- all "statio" for schema objects, by "importance" -->
>
>
David J.