Re: stats_block_level - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: stats_block_level
Date
Msg-id 8B66357B-A288-40CE-9717-AFA35B92C161@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stats_block_level  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: stats_block_level
List pgsql-hackers
On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So maybe the *real* question to ask is why we have separate GUCs for
> stats_row_level and stats_block_level.  Shouldn't we fold them into a
> single switch?  It's hard to see what having just one of them  
> turned on
> will save.

IIRC, the guys at Emma have seen a performance difference with  
stats_block_level off and row_level on, presumable due in part to  
having 150k tables.

Erik? Kim?
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Machine available for community use
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention