Re: New GUC to sample log queries
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New GUC to sample log queries |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKJS1f9T6QfJSWvVzYJOBV+AozTh3Kgtk2-YmAga6qLNcGfz2g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | New GUC to sample log queries (Adrien Nayrat <adrien.nayrat@anayrat.info>) |
Ответы |
Re: New GUC to sample log queries
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 31 May 2018 at 06:44, Adrien Nayrat <adrien.nayrat@anayrat.info> wrote: > Here is a naive SELECT only bench with a dataset which fit in ram (scale factor > = 100) and PGDATA and log on a ramdisk: > shared_buffers = 4GB > seq_page_cost = random_page_cost = 1.0 > logging_collector = on (no rotation) It would be better to just: SELECT 1; to try to get the true overhead of the additional logging code. > I don't know the cost of random() call? It's probably best to test in Postgres to see if there's an overhead to the new code. It may be worth special casing the 0 and 1 case so random() is not called. + (random() < log_sample_rate * MAX_RANDOM_VALUE); this should be <=, or you'll randomly miss logging a query when log_sample_rate is 1.0 every 4 billion or so queries. Of course, it would be better if we had a proper profiler, but I can see your need for this. Enabling logging of all queries in production is currently reserved for people with low traffic servers and the insane. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: