On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying "first, we give DBAs a way to > see which tables are currently hot". Such a feature has multiple > benefits, making it worth the overhead and/or coding effort. > > Whether we're shooting for autotuning or manual tuning, it starts with > having the data.
Well, what we have now is a bunch of counters in pg_stat_all_tables and pg_statio_all_tables. Making that easier for the DBA almost seems like more of a job for a third-party tool that, say, graphs it, than a job for PG itself. But if you have an idea I'm ears. -- 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
