Re: log_duration is redundant, no?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: log_duration is redundant, no?
Date: 2006-09-07 22:52:10
Message-ID: 200609072252.k87MqAu09347@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > If you are using an external tool, can't you just restrict what you
> > display based on the logged duration?
>
> I think his basic complaint is that doing the full logging pushup for
> even short-duration queries is too expensive, and that logging only the
> duration and not the query text or parameters makes a significant speed
> difference. I'm not at all sure that I buy that, but if it's true then
> subsequent filtering obviously doesn't help.

Well, except for bind, all the log output display is zero cost, just a
printf(), as I remember. The only cost that is significant, I think, is
the timing of the query, and that is happening for all the setttings
discussed.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-07 22:58:30 Re: log_duration is redundant, no?
Previous Message Guillaume Smet 2006-09-07 22:50:15 Re: log_duration is redundant, no?