Hi,
On 2022-04-04 19:03:13 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > > (if this is true...but given this is an optimization category I'm
> > thinking
> > > maybe it doesn't actually matter...)
> >
> > It is true. Not sure what you mean with "optimization category"?
> >
> >
> I mean that distinguishing between stats that are fixed and those that are
> variable implies that fixed kinds have a better performance (speed, memory)
> characteristic than variable kinds (at least in part due to the presence of
> changecount). If fixed kinds did not have a performance benefit then
> having the variable kind implementation simply handle fixed kinds as well
> (using the common struct header and storage in a hash table) would make the
> implementation simpler since all statistics would report through the same
> API.
Yes, fixed-numbered stats are faster.
> Coming back to this:
> """
> + /* cluster-scoped object stats having a variable number of entries */
> + PGSTAT_KIND_REPLSLOT = 1, /* per-slot statistics */
> + PGSTAT_KIND_SUBSCRIPTION, /* per-subscription statistics */
> + PGSTAT_KIND_DATABASE, /* database-wide statistics */ (I moved this to 3rd
> spot to be closer to the database-scoped options)
> +
> + /* database-scoped object stats having a variable number of entries */
> + PGSTAT_KIND_RELATION, /* per-table statistics */
> + PGSTAT_KIND_FUNCTION, /* per-function statistics */
> +
> + /* cluster-scoped stats having a fixed number of entries */ (maybe these
> should go first, the variable following?)
> + PGSTAT_KIND_ARCHIVER,
> + PGSTAT_KIND_BGWRITER,
> + PGSTAT_KIND_CHECKPOINTER,
> + PGSTAT_KIND_SLRU,
> + PGSTAT_KIND_WAL,
> """
>
> I see three "KIND_GROUP" categories here:
> PGSTAT_KIND_CLUSTER (open to a different word here though...)
> PGSTAT_KIND_DATABASE (we seem to agree on this above)
> PGSTAT_KIND_GLOBAL (already used in the code)
>
> This single enum can replace the two booleans that, in combination, would
> define 4 unique groups (of which only three are interesting -
> database+fixed doesn't seem interesting and so is not given a name/value
> here).
The more I think about it, the less I think a split like that makes sense. The
difference between PGSTAT_KIND_CLUSTER / PGSTAT_KIND_DATABASE is tiny. Nearly
all code just deals with both together.
I think all this is going to achieve is to making code more complicated. There
is a *single* non-assert use of accessed_across_databases and now a single
assertion involving it.
What would having PGSTAT_KIND_CLUSTER and PGSTAT_KIND_DATABASE achieve?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
