Re: relfilenode statistics
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: relfilenode statistics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmobUm7-KcJcejLG4ZkhmYcK9Q1+6LyuSOR_jUQDy47CcaQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: relfilenode statistics (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: relfilenode statistics
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:11 AM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > The main argument is that we currently don’t have writes counters for relations. > The reason is that we don’t have the relation OID when writing buffers out. OK. > Second argument is that this is also beneficial for the "Split index and > table statistics into different types of stats" thread (mentioned in the previous > message). It would allow us to avoid additional branches in some situations (like > the one mentioned by Andres in the link I provided up-thread). OK. > We’d move the current buffer read and buffer hit counters from the relation stats > to the relfilenode stats (while still being able to retrieve them from the > pg_statio_all_tables/indexes views: see the example for the new heap_blks_written > stat added in the patch). Generally speaking, I think that tracking counters at > a common level (i.e relfilenode level instead of table or index level) is > beneficial (avoid storing/allocating space for the same counters in multiple > structs) and sounds more intuitive to me. Hmm. So if I CLUSTER or VACUUM FULL the relation, the relfilenode changes. Does that mean I lose all of those stats? Is that a problem? Or is it good? Or what? I also thought about the other direction. Suppose I drop the a relation and create a new one that gets a different relation OID but the same relfilenode. But I don't think that's a problem: dropping the relation should forcibly remove the old stats, so there won't be any conflict in this case. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: