| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2012-11-15 21:44:04 |
| Message-ID: | m2r4nu8rtn.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> should expose the hash. The need to aggregate historical statistics
> just doesn't appreciably alter things here, I feel. The number of
> discrete queries that an application will execute in a week just isn't
> that different from the number that it will ever execute, I suspect.
Please don't forget that some people won't write the most effective SQL
from the get go and will rewrite problematic queries. Some people will
even rollout new features in their applications, with new queries to
implement them. Or new applications on top of the existing database.
So I don't think that the query list is that static. That said, I don't
have any idea at all about the impact of what I'm saying to your
analysis…
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-15 21:45:39 | Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-11-15 21:38:16 | Re: feature proposal - triggers by semantics |