MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1831838.1742656359@sss.pgh.pa.us> <80506.1742660683@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <Z99aIy9T0f-lulK5@paquier.xyz> <461405.1742691859@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <Z9-sUvq8pE5uinEu@paquier.xyz> <CAA5RZ0t4XQ_SANiJ5VfuoKnAuxMaY2ggQWoGKkHo+U2H+Sh-Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1189112.1742869660@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAA5RZ0uNofEXfEfNw3uRN3D3oXkFPQ_s+huLLHMKR_+MCk8RPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1192185.1742871390@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAA5RZ0vKpKEWcJn_UZkQVK=j1EUsXfASo06uWSqizzrwKMx8mQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z-Iosks2FMcHddql@paquier.xyz>
In-Reply-To: <Z-Iosks2FMcHddql@paquier.xyz>
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 23:30:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA5RZ0sQcnseBcE3VJDQ21wSA8h4khrNYPTMwb8r6Ki=yzkw7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: query_id: jumble names of temp tables for better
 pg_stat_statement UX
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, ma lz <ma100@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0sQcnseBcE3VJDQ21wSA8h4khrNYPTMwb8r6Ki%3Dyzkw7g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> Exactly.  Like Tom I'm not really worried about the proposal, but of
> course I could prove to be wrong.  I am ready to assume that bloat in
> pgss entries caused by temp tables is a more common case.

I ran installcheck-parallel with the patch and without the patch
3x, and the reduction in pg_s_s bloat is visible. The same entries
are reused even when the regression database is recreated, as
expected.

## without patch run installcheck-parallel 3 times
postgres=# select count(distinct queryid), count(*) from pg_stat_statements;
 count | count
-------+-------
 41630 | 74776
(1 row)


## with patch run installcheck-parallel 3 times
postgres=# select count(distinct queryid), count(*) from pg_stat_statements;
 count | count
-------+-------
 26301 | 73030
(1 row)

>This part of the thread is digressing, but I'd on the side of removing
> entirely the GUC and make the grouping of IN values the default.  We
> still have time to discuss that during the beta cycle, so let's do so
> on its related thread.

I will do that tomorrow in that thread. It would not make sense to introduce
a GUC for that behavior and not for this. So, I am glad we discussed this
here.

Looking at the patches, I could not find anything else besides what
was pointed out by Christoph earlier.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)