Re: Blocks read for index scans - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Blocks read for index scans
Date
Msg-id 9369.1145027575@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Blocks read for index scans  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Responses Re: Blocks read for index scans  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-performance
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> 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

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jignesh K. Shah"
Date:
Subject: Re: bad performance on Solaris 10
Next
From: Ian Westmacott
Date:
Subject: merge>hash>loop