On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 06:24:54PM +0300, Alena Rybakina wrote: > yes, I agree with you. Even when I experimented with vacuum settings for > database and used my vacuum statistics patch [0] for analyzes , I first > looked at this change in the number of blocks or deleted rows at the > database level, > and only then did an analysis of each table and index. > > [0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/50/5012/
As hinted on other related threads like around [1], I am so-so about the proposal of these numbers at table and index level now that we have e7a9496de906 and 5d4298e75f25. In such cases, I apply the concept that I call the "Mention Bien" (or when you get a baccalaureat diploma with honors and with a 14~16/20 in France). What we have is not perfect, still it's good enough to get a 14/20 IMO, making hopefully 70~80% of users happy with these new metrics. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd be curious to know if this thread's proposal is required at all at the end. I have not looked at the logging proposal yet. [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/zywxw7vqplbfv...@paquier.xyz -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
