On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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. :-(
You make it sound as if we know how but are just too lazy to right the code. That is not one of the weaknesses that this community has. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
