Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Date
Msg-id 20230704044611.GA3373000@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions  (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:27:34PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> +        If this parameter is on, two queries with an array will get the same
> +        query identifier if the only difference between them is the number of
> +        constants, both numbers is of the same order of magnitude and greater or
> +        equal 10 (so the order of magnitude is greather than 1, it is not worth
> +        the efforts otherwise).

IMHO this adds way too much complexity to something that most users would
expect to be an on/off switch.  If I understand Álvaro's suggestion [0]
correctly, he's saying that in addition to allowing "on" and "off", it
might be worth allowing something like "powers" to yield roughly the
behavior described above.  I don't think he's suggesting that this "powers"
behavior should be the only available option.  Also, it seems
counterintuitive that queries with fewer than 10 constants are not merged.

In the interest of moving this patch forward, I would suggest making it a
simple on/off switch in 0002 and moving the "powers" functionality to a new
0003 patch.  I think separating out the core part of this feature might
help reviewers.  As you can see, I got distracted by the complicated
threshold logic and ended up focusing my first round of review there.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/20230209172651.cfgrebpyyr72h7fv%40alvherre.pgsql

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: DSA failed to allocate memory
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance operations.