From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mitsumasa KONDO <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement |
Date: | 2014-01-31 19:11:23 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTDsnP3y1YfF7QaW1BwyBxVPdxuxMV6OdjNFwaz3gUCMw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Mitsumasa KONDO
<kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> And past result shows that your patch's most weak point is that deleting
> most old statement
> and inserting new old statement cost is very high, as you know.
No, there is no reason to imagine that entry_dealloc() is any slower,
really. There will perhaps be some additional contention with shared
lockers, but that isn't likely to be a major aspect. When the hash
table is full, in reality at that point it's very unlikely that there
will be two simultaneous sessions that need to create a new entry. As
I said, on many of the systems I work with it takes weeks to see a new
entry. This will be especially true now that the *.max default is
5,000.
> It accelerate to affect
> update(delete and insert) cost in pg_stat_statements table. So you proposed
> new setting
> 10k in default max value. But it is not essential solution, because it is
> also good perfomance
> for old pg_stat_statements.
I was merely pointing out that that would totally change the outcome
of your very artificial test-case. Decreasing the number of statements
to 5,000 would too. I don't think we should assign much weight to any
test case where the large majority or all statistics are wrong
afterwards, due to there being so much churn.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-31 19:21:49 | Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-01-31 19:11:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Insert result does not match record count |