-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Decibel! wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:31:03AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> If we do this, then it's not clear that having pgstats track dead space
>>> is worth the trouble at all. It might possibly be of value for testing
>>> purposes to see how well pruning is doing, but I'm unconvinced that it's
>>> worth bloating stats messages and files to have this number in a
>>> production system. An alternative that would serve as well for testing
>>> would be to teach contrib/pgstattuple to measure dead space.
>> As a DBA, I can say it doesn't really matter to me *how we track* the
>> dead space, as long as tracking it is:
>>
>> 1. Clear
>> 2. Simple
>> 3. Available by default (thus pgstattuple needs to push into core)
>
> 3 isn't that important to me, but 4 is:
>
> 4. Doesn't hammer the database to measure
>
> And pgstattuple fails #4 miserably. Want to know the average dead space
> in a 500GB database? Yeah, right....
Point taken, and agreed (although I still think it needs to be in core).
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG8JpeATb/zqfZUUQRAprDAJ9PtAUx8ZG5P/HnQSM9KZZ/ii3QzwCdHRZ6
JHwNQMkwpS63huymdN0r4Yc=
=0TuC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----