Re: [GENERAL] autoanalyze criteria - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Mark Kirkwood
<mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
> On 24/02/13 10:51, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>
>> On 24/02/13 10:12, Stefan Andreatta wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/23/2013 09:30 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Moved discussion from General To Hackers.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Stefan Andreatta
>>>> <s.andreatta@synedra.com <mailto:s.andreatta@synedra.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 02/23/2013 05:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Sorry, I got tunnel vision about the how the threshold was
>>>>>     computed, and forgot about the thing it was compared to.  There
>>>>>     is a "secret" data point in the stats collector
>>>>>     called changes_since_analyze.  This is not exposed in the
>>>>>     pg_stat_user_tables.  But I think it should be as I often have
>>>>>     wanted to see it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Sounds like a very good idea to me - any way I could help to make
>>>>     such a thing happen?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It should be fairly easy to implement because the other columns are
>>>> already there to show you the way, and if you want to try your hand at
>>>> hacking pgsql it would be a good introduction to doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Look at each instance in the code of n_dead_dup and
>>>> pg_stat_get_dead_tuples, and those are the places where
>>>> changes_since_analyze also need to be addressed, in an analogous
>>>> manner (assuming it is isn't already there.)
>>>>
>>>> git grep 'n_dead_tup'
>>>>
>>>> It looks like we would need to add an SQL function to retrieve the
>>>> data, then incorporate that function into the view definitions that
>>>> make up the pg_stat_user_tables etc. views. and of course update the
>>>> regression test and the documentation.
>>>>
>>>> Other than implementing it, we would need to convince other hackers
>>>> that this is desirable to have.  I'm not sure how hard that would be.
>>>> I've looked in the archives to see if this idea was already considered
>>>> but rejected, but I don't see any indication that it was previously
>>>> considered.
>>>>
>>>> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4823.1262132964@sss.pgh.pa.us).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> Not being a developer, I am afraid, I will not be going to implement it
>>> myself - nor would anybody wish so ;-)
>>>
>>> I also searched the archives, but the closest I found is a discussion on
>>> the Admin List starting here:
>>>
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/626919622.7634700.1351695913466.JavaMail.root@alaloop.com
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there is quite a lot of discussion about making
>>> autoanalyze more (or less) aggressive - which seems a difficult task to
>>> me, when you cannot even check what's triggering your autoanalyze.
>>>
>>> Anybody else interested?
>>>
>>
>> I was asked about this exact thing the other day - it would be very nice
>> to have the information visible. I may take a look at doing it (I've done
>> some hacking on the stats system previously). However don't let that put
>> anyone else off - as I'll have to find the time to start :-)
>>
>>
>>
>
> I happened to be looking at the whole autovacuum/analyze setup in another
> context - which reminded me about volunteering to take a look at a patch for
> adding changes_since_analyze. So with probably impeccably poor timing (smack
> in the middle of 9.3 beta), here is a patch that does that (so it is
> probably an early 9.4 addition).
>
> I've called the column "n_changes_since_analyze" - I can sense that there
> might be discussion about how to maybe shorten that :-) , and added a doc
> line for the view + updated the regression test expected input.

Applied, with the changs suggested by Laurenz Albe in his review.

Thanks!


--Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/