From: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
To: mcelroy, tim <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com>
Cc: 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org' <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PG Statistics
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:18:53 -0700
Message-ID: <20060314001853.GA90740@winnie.fuhr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0C4841B42F87D51195BD00B0D020F5CB044B2466@morpheus.bostonstock.com>
References: <0C4841B42F87D51195BD00B0D020F5CB044B2466@morpheus.bostonstock.com>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 06:49:39PM -0500, mcelroy, tim wrote:
> Does anyone know how much of a performance hit turning stats_block_level and
> stats_row_level on will incur? Do both need to be on to gather cache
> related statistics? I know the annotated_conf_80 document states to only
> turn them on for debug but if they're not that performance intensive I
> cannot see the harm.
I ran some tests a few months ago and found that stats_command_string
had a significant impact, whereas stats_block_level and stats_row_level
were almost negligible. Here are my test results:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-12/msg00307.php
Your results may vary. If you see substantially different results
then please post the particulars.
--
Michael Fuhr
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mike@fuhr.org, tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com
Subject: Re: PG Statistics
In-Reply-To: <20060314001853.GA90740@winnie.fuhr.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox