From: | Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sample rate added to pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2024-12-10 14:35:18 |
Message-ID: | fb3df2e0-2cd4-49ea-bfda-148bc43d613d@tantorlabs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi everyone,
I attached previous sampling patch for pg_stat_statements (v4).
Suggestions like sampling based on execution time remain unfeasible, as
pg_stat_statements can track query during query planning, not execution.
To evaluate the implementation, I ran a benchmark creating 1,000 random
tables and executing randomized JOIN queries on a small machine. When
pg_stat_statements enabled, performance decreases, but reducing the
sampling rate helps mitigate the impact and improves performance.
I’d be interested in hearing your new thoughts. Are there areas where
this patch could be improved, or other ideas worth exploring?
--
Best regards.
Ilia Evdokimov,
Tantor Labs LLC.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v4-0001-Allow-setting-sample-ratio-for-pg_stat_statements.patch | text/x-patch | 3.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2024-12-10 14:38:41 | Re: Pass ParseState as down to utility functions. |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-12-10 14:18:33 | Make use of pg_memory_is_all_zeros() in more places |