Hi, On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 08:54:13AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 03:12:18PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > In light of bb8dff9995f (add cost delay time to progress views), looking at > > the output of 30a6ed0ce4b (track per-relation time spent on vacuum and > > analyze), it struck me as a bit unclear of what the time is really showing. > > > > Do we want to do something similar for the table views? Or if not, we > > should probably at least document the effect of cost based vacuum delay on > > those timings - as in if they are including it or not (which I do believe > > they are). > > I could see it being useful to have the total cost delay time in those > views. The information in the progress views goes away when vacuuming is > done, while the table views would retain it indefinitely.
+1, I think that could be useful to "retain" this information on a per-table basis. > > While more stats are always nice :), I think just being clear about it in > > the docs would perhaps be enough for now? Maybe just appending something > > along the line of "(including cost based delaying)"? Like "more stats are always nice" I think that "more explanations in the doc" are always nice, so I don't see any reason why not to add this extra explanation. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
