Re: Identifying "cold" data - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Keith Fiske
Subject Re: Identifying "cold" data
Date
Msg-id CAODZiv62tWEYUw4MdR_JBm8ZKJUnh8Dvh1-9N2dL5cehpiCHeg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Identifying "cold" data  (Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Identifying "cold" data  (Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-admin

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 9:48 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/22 12:37 PM, Joseph Hammerman wrote:
Hi postgresql-admins,

Has anyone put any thought or effort into figuring out how to measure the total volume of data in a database against how much of it is hot? I'm looking for some automatable approaches. Similarly, is there a way to measure rarely queried columns, or unused functions & triggers?

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/monitoring-stats.html

pg_stat_user_tables tells you how many records have been inserted, updated and deleted since the instance was started.  It does not, though, say which records were updated,


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

For monitoring data itself, I'm not sure of anything else built in other than what Ron shared with the stats table. If this is something you really need to monitor, perhaps look into adding a "changed_at" column to the tables that really need it and set a trigger to automatically update the timestamp of that column whenever the row is updated. Not sure how to track column usage.

For tracking whether functions are used, you can look at the pg_stat_user_functions catalog (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/monitoring-stats.html#MONITORING-PG-STAT-USER-FUNCTIONS-VIEW), but as the documentation there notes, you do have to enable the "track_functions" parameter. I think this tracks trigger function usage as well, but would be good to test to make sure.

--
Keith Fiske
Senior Database Engineer
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Holger Jakobs
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Installation
Next
From: Mladen Gogala
Date:
Subject: Re: Identifying "cold" data