In response to "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>:
> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 13:24 -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> > In response to "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>:
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: RIPEMD160
> > >
> > >
> > > >> In my experience, I've found that enabling full logging for a short time
> > > >> (perhaps a few hours) gathers enough data to run through tools like
> > > >> pgFouine and find problem areas.
> > >
> > > > It is not possible for us. Logging millions of statements take too much time.
> >
> > This is a ridiculous statement.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> > In actual practice, full query logging
> > is 1/50 the amount of disk I/O as the actual database activity. If your
> > systems are so stressed that they can't handle another 2% increase, then
> > you've got bigger problems lurking.
>
> It depends on the system. I have seen even big systems take a huge hit
> by full logging due to transactional velocity.
Perhaps I'm just in a foul mood today, but I feel like people are picking
my emails apart to make me the bad guy. Note that you trimmed out a key
part of what I said here:
"Have you benchmarked the load it creates under your workload?"
Perhaps I should have explicitly said, "There are likely some cases where
this statement isn't true, so you should benchmark your specific load
case, but you don't mention that you've done that."
Or, perhaps I should just abstain from posting to mailing lists when I'm
in a foul mood ...
--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
