Robert Haas wrote: > > Actually, we *do* have some idea which tables are hot. ?Or at least, we > > could. ? Currently, pg_stats for tables are "timeless"; they just > > accumulate from the last reset, which has always been a problem in > > general for monitoring. ?If we could make top-level table and index > > stats time-based, even in some crude way, we would know which tables > > were currently hot. ?That would also have the benefit of making server > > performance analysis and autotuning easier. > > I think there would be value in giving the DBA an easier way to see > which tables are hot, but I am really leery about the idea of trying > to feed that directly into the query planner. I think this is one of > those cases where we let people tune it manually for starters, and > then wait for feedback. Eventually someone will say "oh, I never tune > that by hand any more, ever since I wrote this script which does the > following computation... and I just run it out cron". And then we > will get out the party hats. But we will never get the experience we > need to say what that auto-tuning algorithm will be unless we first > provide the knob for someone to fiddle with manually.
It is also possible we will implement a manual way and never get around to automating it. :-( -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
