X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD6D11F6D56 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:13:17 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: -0.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.482 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.699, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=2.432, SPF_SOFTFAIL=1.384] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 182YOHroMElT for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:12:57 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3214E11F623A for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:12:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3EFCt6V009370; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:12:55 -0400 (EDT) To: "Jim C. Nasby" cc: Postgresql Performance Subject: Re: Blocks read for index scans In-reply-to: <20060414061414.GY49405@pervasive.com> References: <85979594-1CCA-43C5-A8F2-08685CF41ACE@pervasive.com> <2789.1144974969@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060414061414.GY49405@pervasive.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Jim C. Nasby" message dated "Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:14:14 -0500" Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:12:55 -0400 Message-ID: <9369.1145027575@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200604/333 X-Sequence-Number: 18417 "Jim C. Nasby" writes: > In my case it would be helpful to break the heap access numbers out > between seqscans and index scans, since each of those represents very > different access patterns. Would adding that be a mess? Yes; it'd require more counters-per-table than we now keep, thus nontrivial bloat in the stats collector's tables. Not to mention incompatible changes in the pgstats views and the underlying functions (which some apps probably use directly). regards, tom lane