| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement |
| Date: | 2014-01-27 22:54:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTY_dmGoGcu_qOESzu6QHL3VOTr5brTJ2vK1iAzt_7OoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> I care very much what the module does to the performance of all statements.
> But I don't care much if selecting from pg_stat_statements itself is a bit
> slowed. Perhaps I didn't express myself as clearly as I could have.
Oh, I see. Of course the overhead of calling the pg_stat_statements()
function is much less important. Actually, I think that calling that
function is going to add a lot of noise to any benchmark aimed at
measuring added overhead as the counters struct is expanded.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2014-01-28 00:14:06 | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-01-27 22:51:59 | Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c |